Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Exactly, something that you seem to miss spectacularly. It's not about justifying the existence of God.

This particular debate is about saying "I don't know" to things one cannot justify an opinion on. You entered the discussion claimed you do do that.

But saying "I don't know, I believe" is semantic nonsense, and completely missing the point. The whole point is not believing in a claim that is unjustifiable.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I never attempted to do that other than to offer an explanation as to why I believe

Your explanation for why you believe got as far as saying it is faith, but didn't answer the question faith/trust in what specifically

You also claimed your belief was about "loyalty and commitment", but again didn't say loyalty and commitment to what specifically.

So again vacous statements.

tommy2bad wrote: »

don't tell me I'm fooling myself or playing with words.

You are fooling with words. Saying you don't know you believe is fooling with words. Saying belief in god is not like belief in houses is fooling with words. Saying it is about "faith" as if faith is a concept that exists independently of the thing you have faith in, is fooling with words.

All of this is designed to sound meaningful without actually convaying any meaning.

tommy2bad wrote: »

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.

Proof is a straw man. Nothing about the world around us is provable. If knowing something meant having to prove something was true you would know nothing.

The issue is why you believe something rather than saying you don't know.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

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.

Why is there a God?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Why is there a God?

Do you mean why do I believe there is a God? I'm not trying to be evasive, it an important distinction, as if I were to state "there is a God" that would be a statement of knowledge which I could not in all honesty state. What I can state is that the evidence I have considered leads me to the conclusion that it is most likely there is a "God".

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you mean why do I believe there is a God? I'm not trying to be evasive, it an important distinction, as if I were to state "there is a God" that would be a statement of knowledge which I could not in all honesty state. What I can state is that the evidence I have considered leads me to the conclusion that it is most likely there is a "God".

That is the same freaking thing. More pedantic word games.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Do you mean why do I believe there is a God? I'm not trying to be evasive, it an important distinction, as if I were to state "there is a God" that would be a statement of knowledge which I could not in all honesty state. What I can state is that the evidence I have considered leads me to the conclusion that it is most likely there is a "God".

What I mean is "Why is there a God rather than nothing?"

You said you believed God exists because you find the existing popular hypotheses for why there is a universe, why it is the way it is, and why life emerged unconvincing. I am asking you for the hypothesis for why there is a God.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

You said you believed God exists because you find the existing popular hypotheses for why there is a universe, why it is the way it is, and why life emerged unconvincing. I am asking you for the hypothesis for why there is a God.

Because I do not believe that the universe or life emerged from chance which is the only alternative. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth". While the idea of a multiverse is not impossible, I believe the "chance" origin of life is impossible given the statistics involved. The claim that evolutionary biology answers the latter question is laughable, as evolution doesn't even explore the question. Abiogenesis demonstrates that given the right conditions the building blocks for life will be synthesized (as you would expect if the universe was designed with life in mind) but says nothing about how these building blocks organize themselves into the complexity we see in even the most basic cell. Not to speak of the fact that the first bacteria have been dated to 3.5B years ago, soon after the earth cooled and water formed on its surface.

In much the same way we are supposed to believe that DNA, which codes for all of the proteins in life, also by chance organized all those components into even the most basic unicellular life, let alone all by chance and with time built a human brain. Not just any old brain with a 100 trillion neural connections, but one that also became self aware and can ask the questions we are asking.

My hypothesis is that the universe was designed and implemented by a creator with a purpose. To test this hypothesis I have looked at all the evidence and find that the universe, including the life aspect, fit with the hypothesis. In other words the predictions of what a universe would look like if it had been created with a purpose are met. I do not have a good hypothesis for what the purpose is, but I think future generations will discover it.

tommy2bad

Zombrex;
The issue is why you believe something rather than saying you don't know.

Fair enough. I won't insult you with the standard answer instead I will tell you why I believe in God.
Because it's worth believing. God isn't just a presence we have to decide if or if not He exists. He represents a hope and call for us to make that hope a reality. It's more a faith that this world can be a better place as a faith that the next world will be better than this one. But why God? you ask why not democracy or nanotechnology or veganism or yoga?
Because all those are part of it but none are the whole, God is universal and encompasses all the best parts.

Morbert;
What I mean is "Why is there a God rather than nothing?"

Related question so I'll hijack it to add to the above.
Because nothing offers nothing, has no solution, answer or options. I know that's not what Morbert meant but his question has no answer other than 'we don't know but we hope!'

Geomy

I think spiritual, religious and agnostic people have a more advanced pineal gland than those wans...

We tend to be able to process spiritual,metaphysical and esoteric concepts much more easier than Atheists.
Some of them just haven't the capability to process it and understand what us so called loons are on about.
So they use the us scientists are more intelligent and know better arrogant approach, having a pineal gland that doesn't fire up right must be tough ;-)

tommy2bad

Geomy wrote: »

I think spiritual, religious and agnostic people have a more advanced pineal gland than those wans...

We tend to be able to process spiritual,metaphysical and esoteric concepts much more easier than Atheists.
Some of them just haven't the capability to process it and understand what us so called loons are on about.
So they use the us scientists are more intelligent and know better arrogant approach, having a pineal gland that doesn't fire up right must be tough ;-)

Perhaps theirs a cream or something for that?:rolleyes:

Geomy

tommy2bad wrote: »

Perhaps theirs a cream or something for that?:rolleyes:

Yeah you can get it in the Burren Perfumery, hand made by fairies and leprechauns....

With zero lime or calcium content, as that stuff rots the glands lol

Actually in a walled garden near you Jasmine will be flowering now it's magical stuff during the evening like night scented stock.

Brought to you by the almighty creator, mother earth,God, Allah, , universal consciousness. ..

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Because I do not believe that the universe or life emerged from chance which is the only alternative.

Leaving aside your incorrect statements about life for the moment: Do you believe God emerged by chance?

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Why is there a God?

Why would a first cause need a cause?

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Leaving aside your incorrect statements about life for the moment: Do you believe God emerged by chance?

No. I believe our universe had a first cause and all the evidence we have seems to support this (big bang, expanding universe). As to the question what caused the first cause, that is the paradox of infinite regress which is unanswerable but which is only relevant to the constraints of our universe. If God exists, then God must be outside our observed universe and thus not constrained by our ideas of time, etc.

What are the "correct" statements about life, specifically how we get to the first biological cell. We certainly know a lot about what chemical reactions are possible, this is no way explains how you get to a cell. That's before attempting the why question.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

No. I believe our universe had a first cause and all the evidence we have seems to support this (big bang, expanding universe). As to the question what caused the first cause, that is the paradox of infinite regress which is unanswerable but which is only relevant to the constraints of our universe. If God exists, then God must be outside our observed universe and thus not constrained by our ideas of time, etc.

What are the "correct" statements about life, specifically how we get to the first biological cell. We certainly know a lot about what chemical reactions are possible, this is no way explains how you get to a cell. That's before attempting the why question.

Is the universe constrained by our ideas?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why would a first cause need a cause?

Why can't the first cause be some facet of the universe that is unfathomable to our primate brains? Why insist the universe must have a cause when we so readily dismiss such a requirement for God.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

Why can't the first cause be some facet of the universe that is unfathomable to our primate brains?

Well that's the age old question...? What IS unfathomable to our primate brains? Why are we so weird among the other primate brains? We seem to pursue the ideaology that 'nothing' is unfathomable - it's all waiting around the corner, and that's nothing new - and it's good too. However, at the end of ones nose is too obvious.

Why insist the universe must have a cause when we so readily dismiss such a requirement for God.

The universe does have a cause? It was 'caused' it began?

Even a remote notion like the multiverse is 'caused'? Or are we saying that the unseen, and only pointed towards theory of multiple universes and multiple worlds is better than - the unseen but pointed towards, and felt by many primate brains - and indeed as far as Christianity is concerned lets not forget 'Jesus' - is less believable?

I understand there is a 'discipline'- then there is a 'human being' too -

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Is the universe constrained by our ideas of time?

Can you be more specific in what you mean by time? Do you mean time as in a fundamental property of nature or time the way we experience it, the arrow of time? I'm not sure anyone understand time in terms of the fundamental property. My concept of God is a "mind" that exists in a static universe where nothing changes at least in the way we think about things changing in our universe. A bit similar to how Sean Carroll postulates a static universe that gives rise to universes like ours, but with the God bit in the static universe or as the static universe.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Why can't the first cause be some facet of the universe that is unfathomable to our primate brains? Why insist the universe must have a cause when we so readily dismiss such a requirement for God.

I call that unfathomable thing God. If the universe is a simulation, as I believe, then it is logical to believe there is a simulator.

Do you give any credence to the simulation hypothesis?

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

It is not a straw man argument.

Yes. It is. As I said the vast atheist position appears to be that there is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer, much less so from you, to suggest there is a god.

At no point has any atheist I am personally aware of suggested that engaging in the speculation is a delusion... Dawkins and Krauss included, or that the possibility that there is a god is non existent.

We are aware it is possible. We are all for speculation. We just want to acknowledge the massive and so far uncrossed gap between acknowledging the possibility of X... and acknowledging any substantiation of X.

Of course it is possible there is a god. And speculation is great. But so far there is no an iota of even a shred of anything giving the concept even a modicum of credibility.

But by all means continue to tell us what we think rather than listen to us tell you what we think.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

I will tell you why I believe in God.
Because it's worth believing.

That is an incredibly bad reason to believe something is true.

There are a whole host of things that would be better if they were true. It would be better if I won the lottery. It would be better if I never had a car accident. It would be better if the Syrian war ended.

While I can certainly think it would be nice if all those things happened, it would be incredible foolish for me to believe they will simply because it is "worth believing" they will.

tommy2bad wrote: »

God isn't just a presence we have to decide if or if not He exists. He represents a hope and call for us to make that hope a reality.

What hope does God represent if he doesn't exist?

You can say that even if he doesn't exist people should still be nice to each other, people should still treat each other with respect etc. But then that is precisely the point, those are true independently to the existence of God.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It's more a faith that this world can be a better place as a faith that the next world will be better than this one. But why God? you ask why not democracy or nanotechnology or veganism or yoga?
Because all those are part of it but none are the whole, God is universal and encompasses all the best parts.

Only because you say he does. You could have just as easily said Freddy Mercury represents all these things.

If God is not real and is just man made he represents nothing more than the limited thinking of a group of priests and warlords 4,000 years ago, the limited imagination of a bunch of humans.

Or to put it another way, if God doesn't exist you can really do better in what you decide to believe just to make the world better.

Zombrex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. It is. As I said the vast atheist position appears to be that there is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer, much less so from you, to suggest there is a god.

At no point has any atheist I am personally aware of suggested that engaging in the speculation is a delusion... Dawkins and Krauss included, or that the possibility that there is a god is non existent.

We are aware it is possible. We are all for speculation. We just want to acknowledge the massive and so far uncrossed gap between acknowledging the possibility of X... and acknowledging any substantiation of X.

Of course it is possible there is a god. And speculation is great. But so far there is no an iota of even a shred of anything giving the concept even a modicum of credibility.

But by all means continue to tell us what we think rather than listen to us tell you what we think.

nagricc seems to confuse saying "I don't know" with "I don't care"

I don't care suggests a level of disinterest with the natural world that is of concern. You should care what the answer to these questions are as they can have profound effect on humanity.

On the other hand simply caring what the answer is is not a reason to ignore the fact that you still don't know what the answer is. It is not a justification to simply pick what ever answer you find most interesting or compelling to you and decide that this is the true answer.

That ironically would be to me another example of "I don't care". You are saying you don't really care what the answer is, you care what explanation makes you feel better.

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

nagricc seems to confuse saying "I don't know" with "I don't care"

I don't care suggests a level of disinterest with the natural world that is of concern. You should care what the answer to these questions are as they can have profound effect on humanity.

On the other hand simply caring what the answer is is not a reason to ignore the fact that you still don't know what the answer is. It is not a justification to simply pick what ever answer you find most interesting or compelling to you and decide that this is the true answer.

That ironically would be to me another example of "I don't care". You are saying you don't really care what the answer is, you care what explanation makes you feel better.

From reading that post, I can detect a worrying trend of Co dependence control issues.

Zombrex way or the highway. ...

The highway for me thanks....

Who decides what's good for humanity ?

Religion. ...no

Secularism. ...no

Humanity. ...maybe

Humanity decides what's good for humanity, nothing else.

If yer man over there wants to believe in God that's ok with me, I believe in spirituality and prefer Christian and Sufi mysticism over doctrinal teaching. ..

Zombrex you don't believe in God but are barking up the wrong trees when they tell people what's good for humanity. ..

Howling at the moon I say ol chap. ...

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

From reading that post, I can detect a worrying trend of Co dependence control issues.

Zombrex way or the highway. ...

The highway for me thanks....

Are you still mad because of I and others didn't accept your argument that there was no harm in religious faith?

Geomy

Zombrex wrote: »

Are you still mad because of I and others didn't accept your argument that there was no harm in religious faith?

Not at all,we got over that one :-)

It's when you lack the realization that were all cognitively different and have different opinions.

You tend to post with a dominant nature, rather than a more balanced approach.

Morbert

nagirrac: What I mean is you are not applying the same standards to God as you are to the universe.

You say "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer to the question of why the universe exists, yet at the same time you declare God is unfathomable when I ask you why God exists. In other words, you are perfectly happy with "I don't know" as an answer to why God exists. Atheists, by contrast, are happy with it as an answer to why the universe exists.

As for a simulated universe: It's not impossible, but there is no evidence for it.

Geomy

Morbert wrote: »

nagirrac: What I mean is you are not applying the same standards to God as you are to the universe.

You say "I don't know" is not acceptable answer to the question of why the universe exists, yet at the same time you declare God is unfathomable when I ask you why God exists. In other words, you are perfectly happy with "I don't know" as an answer to why God exists. Atheists, by contrast, are happy with it as an answer to why the universe exists.

As for a simulated universe: It's not impossible, but there is no evidence for it.

So are you against the idea of being agnostic ?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Well that's the age old question...? What IS unfathomable to our primate brains? Why are we so weird among the other primate brains? We seem to pursue the ideaology that 'nothing' is unfathomable - it's all waiting around the corner, and that's nothing new - and it's good too. However, at the end of ones nose is too obvious.

No such ideology is pursued even by the most hardened materialist. In science, any grand unified theory would still ultimately be empirical, and we could perpetually ask why the universe is the way it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfjWa6yW2mk

The universe does have a cause? It was 'caused' it began?

Even a remote notion like the multiverse is 'caused'? Or are we saying that the unseen, and only pointed towards theory of multiple universes and multiple worlds is better than - the unseen but pointed towards, and felt by many primate brains - and indeed as far as Christianity is concerned lets not forget 'Jesus' - is less believable?

I understand there is a 'discipline'- then there is a 'human being' too

"The universe" as defined by what we observe might be as limited as a cat calling their local neighbourhood "the universe". The universe, in the sense of the entirety of existence, is not obliged to understood in its totality by our primate brains.

Morbert

Geomy wrote: »

So are you against the idea of being agnostic ?

I am an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

No such ideology is pursued even by the most hardened materialist. In science, any grand unified theory would still ultimately be empirical, and we could perpetually ask why the universe is the way it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfjWa6yW2mk

It can seem that way Morbert when you listen to some, not all Atheists - it's like as if they believe, or at least come across in such a way that they believe human beings are able to 'fathom' everything and science is not merely a tool that involves a discipline but also a 'way of life' too - the 'doubt' factor doesn't come across too well with very many (not all) materialists. Very many are quite the proselytizers. Just sayin....

Yeah, I love Feynman, who couldn't? ...and I think he is quite honest in a personal and reflective way - However, he doesn't come off as quite the hardened materialist, just a guy who is happy to investigate - I think a scientist can also be very comfortably Christian when they explore doubts, and I believe Feynman would understand that - there aren't any creeds, just people in scientific communities.

"The universe" as defined by what we observe might be as limited as a cat calling their local neighbourhood "the universe". The universe, in the sense of the entirety of existence, is not obliged to understood in its totality by our primate brains.

Of course it could - it's very interesting however to keep investigating the nature of our reality and be blown away sometimes by how beautiful it is.

Zombrex

Geomy wrote: »

You tend to post with a dominant nature, rather than a more balanced approach.

What would be a "balanced" approach to something that is a bad argument?

Also I hope you appreciate the irony of complaining that I dominate a conversation in a post that is attempting to shut down the discussion with an ad hominem attack.