Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Are you serious ?
There's only one winner in that scenario and that's the guy's on top.
I also knew a born again Christian who was a right slave driver. ...
Cetainly I am serious. Are you ?
We all benefit from increased productivity, not just 'the guy' on top. The alternative would have left us all back living in caves and scavenging for berries.0 -
Cetainly I am serious. Are you ?
We all benefit from increased productivity, not just 'the guy' on top. The alternative would have left us all back living in caves and scavenging for berries.
Well if the money keeps on getting distributed unevenly well all be scavenging for berries, that's if Monsanto doesn't steal the rights to the wild berries. ...
So do you agree with slavery ?0 -
-
-
Because it makes the most sense to me.
Given how many things make a lot of sense in this world but turn out to be false.... and how many things make no sense at all but are seemingly entirely true... I would think that "It makes sense to me" is probably the worst explanation for deism or theism I have ever heard in my 18+ years of deep research on the subject. In fact I have only ever heard that explanation touted by one other person in my experience and he has since done a runner from these parts and the place has been better for it to the point I even find myself popping in and reading these days.
I am not doubting that it makes sense to you at all but I think such statements should come with the caveat that they are statements that use a lot of words but quite literally say nothing at all.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Given how many things make a lot of sense in this world but turn out to be false.... and how many things make no sense at all but are seemingly entirely true... I would think that "It makes sense to me" is probably the worst explanation for deism or theism I have ever heard in my 18+ years of deep research on the subject. In fact I have only ever heard that explanation touted by one other person in my experience and he has since done a runner from these parts and the place has been better for it to the point I even find myself popping in and reading these days.
I am not doubting that it makes sense to you at all but I think such statements should come with the caveat that they are statements that use a lot of words but quite literally say nothing at all.
Well the big advantage of "it make sense to me" is that someone never has to justify that explanation, not even to themselves. It works on the idea that something "making sense" is supposed to be in of itself a reason for something to be true. And if someone is to criticise it as being profoundly stupid the person has the socially acceptable defence that you must be attacking them because after all it make sense to them so for you to criticise that you must be criticising them.
Bit of a win win for those who hold to such notions.0 -
"Well it stands to reason don'it?" as the common man of Ankh Moorpork would say!
I agree that it makes sense to me is not a good reason to adopt a position. However as what we are talking about is something that at heart is a personal thing then 'makes sense to me' may be as much reason as we can achieve.
You look at the evidence and try to aligne that with your experience and on balance if it 'makes sense' then you go with it.0 -
"Well it stands to reason don'it?" as the common man of Ankh Moorpork would say!
I agree that it makes sense to me is not a good reason to adopt a position. However as what we are talking about is something that at heart is a personal thing then 'makes sense to me' may be as much reason as we can achieve.
That is an equally vacuous reason to adopt a position. The sensible position is "I don't know". But those words seem to be almost banned on this forum.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
That is an equally vacuous reason to adopt a position. The sensible position is "I don't know". But those words seem to be almost banned on this forum.
Hmmm , I think I'v stated that I don't know several times even gone as far as to say that we can't know. That's not the same as saying that we cant construct an argument in favor or against any position though.
In the end Christology, theology and all that are about as likely to produce proof as asking 'who put the ram in the ramalangdingdong' Doesn't stop it being a fun though.0 -
Hmmm , I think I'v stated that I don't know several times even gone as far as to say that we can't know.
But you don't say you don't know. If you did you wouldn't be a Christian. You wouldn't believe the things you claim to believe on this forum.That's not the same as saying that we cant construct an argument in favor or against any position though.
Being able to construct an argument in favor of something is meaningless. You can present an argument in favor of anything (a skill most spin doctors possess).
The question is whether it is a good argument in favor of something or not.
In the absence of good arguments for something the sensible position is admitting one does not know. There are no good arguments in favor of an intelligently created universe. That is not to say the universe was not intelligently created, but the sensible position to take on the issue is "I don't know"In the end Christology, theology and all that are about as likely to produce proof as asking 'who put the ram in the ramalangdingdong' Doesn't stop it being a fun though.
"Proof" is a straw man. We are not talking about proof. We are talking about good arguments in favour of a position.0 -
But you don't say you don't know. If you did you wouldn't be a Christian. You wouldn't believe the things you claim to believe on this forum.
Being able to construct an argument in favor of something is meaningless. You can present an argument in favor of anything (a skill most spin doctors possess).
The question is whether it is a good argument in favor of something or not.
In the absence of good arguments for something the sensible position is admitting one does not know. There are no good arguments in favor of an intelligently created universe. That is not to say the universe was not intelligently created, but the sensible position to take on the issue is "I don't know"
"Proof" is a straw man. We are not talking about proof. We are talking about good arguments in favour of a position.
Oh come on now! telling me what I can believe and what I can't is a bit much, never mind telling me I'm not a christian. Again your narrow definition of Christianity is the real straw windmill here, keep on tilting at all you want!
Actually the arguments are good, consistent and logical within their own worldview, that you don't share that worldview is the problem.
Proof is a strawman? Eh aren't you the one who demolishes all theology with the devastating absence of evidence or proof argument? (I could be mixing you up with any number of other posters so forgive me if I'm wrong).0 -
Oh come on now! telling me what I can believe and what I can't is a bit much, never mind telling me I'm not a christian.
I'm not telling you what you can or cannot believe.
I'm telling you that believing X is not the same as saying "I don't know".Again your narrow definition of Christianity is the real straw windmill here, keep on tilting at all you want!
Show me a definition of Christianity that replaces everything Christianity claims with "I don't know"Actually the arguments are good, consistent and logical within their own worldview, that you don't share that worldview is the problem.
An argument that is only consistent within its own "worldview" is not a good argument. It is in fact a circular argument, since the "worldview" more often than not requires acceptance of the argument in the first place.
For example, starting an argument for God doing something with the prefix that you need to accept God did something.Proof is a strawman?
Yes. It is easy to say there is no absolute proof for something, as if that makes claims about other things better claims. I can't prove that the sun is going to raise tomorrow. That doesn't make belief in such an idea on the same level as believing a story from the Bible
The fact of the matter is that particular claims have particularly bad support for them, including the claims of Christianity. And claims that the universe was intelligently created. These a bad ideas to accept even before you get to issues of how do we know anything is true.0 -
Zombrex, it called a faith. Can it be any clearer in it statement of 'Don't know but place your trust'!
I believe in God,The fact of the matter is that particular claims have particularly bad support for them, including the claims of Christianity.
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen
That's it, all 12 claims of Christianity, all of which begin with 'I believe' not 'I know' see the difference?0 -
Zombrex, it called a faith.
Then why post on the thread at all? The above is a conversation stopper. You are basically just saying "I believe it because I believe it".
But this is a debate thread. So conversation stoppers like that are not very useful. A debate thread is considering the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning which substantiate the claim that any such entity exists.
Or put another way it is not THAT you believe most of us are discussing but whether there are any reasons for WHY. Simply saying "I believe because I believe" as you essentially did is entirely the opposite of that aim.
The simple fact is that in 18+ years of studying closely the subject of religion I have not been shown a shred of even an iota of evidence, data, argument or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credibility, let alone substantiation, to the claim there is a god. Much less so from the 468 pages (on my settings) of this thread.0 -
Actually the arguments are good, consistent and logical within their own worldview, that you don't share that worldview is the problem.
Indeed but this is true of many things. The problem seems to be as I often say "World views that assume themselves".
What I mean by this is that if you assume something is true upfront and then retrofit the "evidence" to it retrospectively then that world view will always seem "good, consistent and logical" within itself.
That is why in certain contexts I have often defined the word "faith" as "The willingness to assume the conclusion true in order to go about showing the conclusion true".
But as I opened by saying: This can be done a _lot_ and not just with god. Take for example the 23ists. These are people, numerous enough that a Jim Carey Film was written and filmed based on them, who believe the number 23 controls everything and to understand it is to understand the secret of the universe.
If you assume this world view true and then go about trying to confirm to yourself it is true: You succeed. The 23ists as represented so well by Carey in the film are entirely correct. 23 IS everywhere. Go look for it. You will find it, find it some more, then find it again. And the more you find it the better you will get at finding it. Did you wake up at exactly 19:04? Well 19+4=23! 23 be praised. Was the registration on the car that nearly ran you over 95891? Well those digits add to 32.... 23 backwards!!! 23 be praised!
Problem is it works for ANY number. Especially prime numbers. 23ists are not right at all. No more than the people looking for numerical patterns in the Koran and Bible for example. Their error lies in the fact that they adopted their world view first and evidenced it second and while they had that world view "the arguments are good, consistent and logical within their own worldview".
In short, a skill I clearly lack, the difference is between world views that are CONSISTENT with the evidence and world views that are actually SUBSTANTIATED by the evidence. 23ism and theism are the former. In spades.
They are not even remotely the latter.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Given how many things make a lot of sense in this world but turn out to be false.... and how many things make no sense at all but are seemingly entirely true... I would think that "It makes sense to me" is probably the worst explanation for deism or theism I have ever heard in my 18+ years of deep research on the subject.
If you have done 18+ years of deep research on the subject then at least we have one thing in common:) It also means you do not accept "we don't know" as an acceptable answer. If humans had adopted the "we don't know" approach, there would never have been any scientific progress.
My belief is based on looking at the evidence, both what science has discovered and my personal experiences. I fully understand the pitfalls of personal experience and am extremely self critical. I have had three personal experiences in my life that have convinced me of the existence of a spiritual dimension that we do not normally perceive (and no I am not willing to disclose them as they are personal, but for me they are enough). I also have validating testimony of others whom I trust on the same subject. Those who do not believe will regard these as delusion, there is zero I can do to convince them. If anyone were interested in exploring this area I would recommend meditation, but it has to be taken seriously and with patience.
On the scientific question (this is also in answer to morbert's question), I accept there is no solid evidence to answer the question "why is there a universe and where did it come from". Our physics does not allow us go back beyond planck time, so anything we propose is highly speculative. I question the atheist position that speculation in an intelligent creator is delusion while speculation of multiverses, an eternally recurring universe, etc. are reasonable. This simply represents confirmation bias to me, and scientists are just as prone to conformation bias as anyone.
When I say makes "most" sense to me ("most" is the key word in my claim which indicates I have considered all other explanations), I mean what is the hypothesis that makes most sense, given we have no compelling evidence, and have to make deductions from the evidence we have. I find the scientific hypothesis of digital physics compelling, that the universe we observe is "essentially informational and therefore computable". I didn't "make this up" as zombrex would claim, this is a serious area of science, first explored seriously by John Wheeler. If you are interested in the hypothesis, I would recommend Ed Fredkin who came up with the term "digital physics" (google "Ed Fredkin digital philosophy"). I apologize for not getting into Fredkin's claims in more detail but will get back to this.0 -
It also means you do not accept "we don't know" as an acceptable answer.
It entirely depends on the question which you did not include. But if you mean "Is there a god?" then I perfectly happily accept the answer "We don't know" but with the caveat that "but we have literally no reasoning, evidence, arguments or data to think so or to lend the idea even a modicum of credibility".
It is not "We dont know" I take much issue with however. It is the false equivalence people often use that to build. As if the lack of evidence for AND against the proposition means that it remains a 50:50 one or that this lack of evidence either way itself lends the proposition credibility. We have seen on many threads on both sides of the "fence" here how ridiculous that notion is... usually illustrated with teapots and noodles... yet it is one theists I talk with try to run with time, and time, again.
Also "We don't know" for me is, as you implied, merely a statement that automatically follows in my brain with "but let's try and find out".I fully understand the pitfalls of personal experience and am extremely self critical.
Perhaps you believe you are. Statements like the one I just replied to about how it "makes sense" however make me suspicious of taking your self appraisal at face value however.
A situation that is only compounded by you claiming to have "evidence" or "experiences" but quickly followed up by you not actually providing any and in fact declaring you will not be providing them.
I wish I had a cent for every theist who told me there was evidence. I wish I then had another cent for every one of them who then proceeded to not actually present it.
Both coin piles would be, needless to say, identical. To the last coin.If anyone were interested in exploring this area I would recommend meditation.
A great pursuit and it would be an error were you to come to any assumption that I have not engaged in it or studied it closely. I am well aware not only of the experiences and feelings it can provide one with but I am also happily aware of the neuroscience explanations for many of those experiences just as the feeling of a presence "out there" or a feeling of a "universal love" or a feeling of a "universal relevance/interconnectedness" of all things and more.
I know the new age mystic tripe too that is built up about such experiences. People who self appoint themselves with pHd and go around bouncing words like "biofeedback" and "quantum-" and so forth. All new packaging for the old "god" product.I question the atheist position that speculation in an intelligent creator is delusion while speculation of multiverses, an eternally recurring universe, etc. are reasonable.
Straw man alert. I do not think this is an "atheist position". In fact I do not think there is any "atheist position" on anything at all but even then I am not aware of anyone, myself included, who finds speculation to be a delusion. Speculation is a great thing. Without it we would still be in caves, if even that.
I love speculation. Go for it. Do more of it. We can never have enough. But there is a chasm deep and wide between speculation and comments like "It is possible there is a god"............. and any position that thinks the idea there is one is at this time remotely substantiated or in any way credible.
There is also a false analogy between god and multiverse hypothesis there. The former has no substantiation of ANY sort. It simply jumps into the imagination of humans. The latter is a hypothesis based not on imagination but based on the fact that our knowledge and laws and equations and unsolved problems are throwing out strong indicators of such a conclusion.
Pulling X out of mid air or a private bodily orifice.... and noting that evidence is strongly leading towards Y..... in no way licenses an analogy between X and Y.0 -
Why do you believe this?
See my answer to nozzferrahhtoo, and I will have to return to this later, but in essence I find the existing popular hypotheses for why there is a universe, why it is the way it is, and why life emerged unconvincing. I have studied digital physics for quite some time, especially the work of Ed Fredkin, and find it plausible.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zombrex, it called a faith. Can it be any clearer in it statement of 'Don't know but place your trust'!
Which is not the same as saying "I don't know".
It is saying I have no independent reason to believe this other than I trust X who told me it is true.
Which when applied to God becomes a purely circular argument. If you trust God who do you trust to tell you there is a God in the first place?That's it, all 12 claims of Christianity, all of which begin with 'I believe' not 'I know' see the difference?
That is pointless semantics. Belief without knowledge can take the form of trust, but answer me this, who do you trust in order to believe all of what you just claimed?0 -
See my answer to nozzferrahhtoo, and I will have to return to this later, but in essence I find the existing popular hypotheses for why there is a universe, why it is the way it is, and why life emerged unconvincing. I have studied digital physics for quite some time, especially the work of Ed Fredkin, and find it plausible.
You believe it because it is plausible?
What about the "existing popular hypotheses for why there is a universe, why it is the way it is, and why life emerged" (I assume you mean the multiverse and/or biological evolution) is not plausible?0 -
Which is not the same as saying "I don't know".
It is saying I have no independent reason to believe this other than I trust X who told me it is true.
Sorta but not exactly....
Which when applied to God becomes a purely circular argument. If you trust God who do you trust to tell you there is a God in the first place?
Trust in God Zombrex, the 'in' is important
That is pointless semantics. Belief without knowledge can take the form of trust, but answer me this, who do you trust in order to believe all of what you just claimed?
Yourself ?
Sorry havn't time to expand on this but I will come back to it.
Your point about semantics is important as I think a lot of what I'm trying to express is not a matter of semantics but definitions. You seem to think belief in God is the same as belief in houses or gravity, it's not. Belief in God is about
dedication loyalty and commitment.0 -
Not at the fundamental level. Fundamentally the belief is with regard to existence; you cannot commit to/have loyalty for something you don't believe exists.Yourself ?
Sorry havn't time to expand on this but I will come back to it.
Your point about semantics is important as I think a lot of what I'm trying to express is not a matter of semantics but definitions. You seem to think belief in God is the same as belief in houses or gravity, it's not. Belief in God is about
dedication loyalty and commitment.0 -
Yourself ?
Sorry havn't time to expand on this but I will come back to it.
Your point about semantics is important as I think a lot of what I'm trying to express is not a matter of semantics but definitions. You seem to think belief in God is the same as belief in houses or gravity, it's not. Belief in God is about dedication loyalty and commitment.
That is a whole vacuous statement. It doesn't mean anything. You might as well say belief in houses or gravity is about loyalty and commitment. Someone could believe in those things because of loyalty and commitment. But that is a pretty silly reason to believe in houses and gravity. And it is an equally silly reason to believe in God.
If God doesn't exist it doesn't matter how much loyalty and commitment you poor into worshipping him.
What you are basically saying is that it is better for me if what I believe turns out to be true, and then you use that as a reason to believe what you believe.
But again that has no bearing on whether it is true, and you could say that about anything including houses and gravity.
Someone could just as easily say they believe they are going to win the Lotto this week because it would be better for them if they did win the Lotto this week, and as such they "trust" that their faith in winning the lotto won't let them down.
A pointless statement.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Straw man alert. I do not think this is an "atheist position". In fact I do not think there is any "atheist position" on anything at all but even then I am not aware of anyone, myself included, who finds speculation to be a delusion. Speculation is a great thing. Without it we would still be in caves, if even that. I love speculation. Go for it. Do more of it. We can never have enough. But there is a chasm deep and wide between speculation and comments like "It is possible there is a god"............. and any position that thinks the idea there is one is at this time remotely substantiated or in any way credible.
It is not a straw man argument. When I refer to the atheist position, I obviously mean those atheists that take a strong position (strong atheists) on the question of God. I fully accept that there are many atheists, and perhaps the majority who self identify as atheists, who simply do not consider the God question at all, but you cannot seriously suggest that people like Dawkins and Krauss and those influenced by them do not have a position. On the contrary, the rise in atheism among young adults in my opinion is due primarily to the influence of strong atheists who very much take a position.
At the end of the day, after careful contemplation, we all individually have to try and make sense of this strange place we find ourselves in. I find the argument that belief in God is not credible to be an intellectually weak argument and somewhat arrogant. If I believed in something that no well educated person believed in, then I would agree that would not be credible, and I would seriously question my beliefs. However, the opposite is the case. I am quite comfortable in my beliefs, knowing that they are in common with the beliefs of Einstein, Planck, Kohn, Born, Pauli, Marconi, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Eccles, among many other intellectual giants. Is that a claim to authority, yes, but it refutes the vacuous argument that only the "weak minded" believe in God.
My position by the way is not that "it is possible there is a God", which I agree would be lazy speculation, my position is "it is most likely there is a God". My belief is based on decades of study, careful contemplation, consideration of the views of others, and my personal experiences. You can knock it all you like, but I assure you I sleep very well at night comfortable in the knowledge that in terms of my beliefs I am in good company.0 -
Ok I said I'd come back to this but do you know what, I won't bother if this is the level of nonsense and deliberate misunderstanding I'm up against.Zombrex;
Someone could just as easily say they believe they are going to win the Lotto this week because it would be better for them if they did win the Lotto this week, and as such they "trust" that their faith in winning the lotto won't let them down.
One more time, if you don't understand the difference between believing your going to win the lotto and believing that winning the lotto is a good thing, you have bigger problems than whether God exists or not.
I'm beginning to see why this thread is pointless.0 -
Ok I said I'd come back to this but do you know what, I won't bother if this is the level of nonsense and deliberate misunderstanding I'm up against.
One more time, if you don't understand the difference between believing your going to win the lotto and believing that winning the lotto is a good thing, you have bigger problems than whether God exists or not.
I'm beginning to see why this thread is pointless.
Don't get snotty with me tommy just because your vacuous romantic language isn't having its usual numbing effect.
This thread is about justifying a belief in God, specifically the Christian claims about God.
Saying you believe God exists out of "loyalty and commitment" is a pointless and vacuous statement. It is basically just another way of presenting the endlessly circular argument of saying one believes in God because God wants us to believe in him so therefore it is good to believe in him :rolleyes:.
Saying belief in God is not like belief in houses and gravity is an equally meaningless statement. In what way specifically is not like belief in those things, and why can someone not believe in houses and gravity in the manner you believe in God?
This thread will continue to be pointless so long as posters just keep parroting back dogma rather than thinking properly about why they believe what they believe. As nozzferrahhtoo points out if all you are prepared to do is that then there is little point even bothering to post in this thread. You believe what you believe because it is what you believe and you like believing it :rolleyes:0 -
This thread is about justifying a belief in God, specifically the Christian claims about God.
Exactly, something that you seem to miss spectacularly. It's not about justifying the existence of God.
I never attempted to do that other than to offer an explanation as to why I believe, what I believe and what that belief means to me, accept it or reject it as you wish but don't tell me I'm fooling myself or playing with words.
I get a earache from the atheists and some of the Christians here because I don't think God is knowable and therefore un provable. For one side it's a cop out and the other its a heresy. End of the day all it is is honest.
I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists or that you must believe in Him just trying to make you see that belief isn't a one size fits all, it isn't even a matter of proof or disproof. It's a way of living.0 -
Advertisement
-
Exactly, something that you seem to miss spectacularly. It's not about justifying the existence of God.
I never attempted to do that other than to offer an explanation as to why I believe, what I believe and what that belief means to me, accept it or reject it as you wish but don't tell me I'm fooling myself or playing with words.
I don't think you will ever satisfy an atheist unless they are soft atheist or agnostic or at least not dug in with a fully formed worldview set in stone - It's no harm to see it as merely a worldview, and not an entirely informed one either. 1000 years from now etc.I get a earache from the atheists and some of the Christians here because I don't think God is knowable and therefore un provable. For one side it's a cop out and the other its a heresy. End of the day all it is is honest.
I'm not trying to persuade you that God exists or that you must believe in Him just trying to make you see that belief isn't a one size fits all, it isn't even a matter of proof or disproof. It's a way of living.
Oh gosh, nobody could describe God, we only know so much - what I can say, is said best by our understanding of Christianity when one knows it....Lewis said it and Chesterton inspired this truth...
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
Christianity is not about merely 'doctrines' - Christianity is about a person ultimately and an encounter with Jesus Christ primarily, everything else I think is secondary to that.
So, 'Jesus Christ' - do only nerds wear the T shirt? Or rosary or a cross on a chain these days? I don't think so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement