Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

fergus1001 wrote: »

religion was used in by gone times to explain the weird happenings and also to alleviate the fear of death

id like to believe but my mind is to analytical to let me do that

Not analytical enough if you left it at that simplistic explanation.

robp

fergus1001 wrote: »

religion was used in by gone times to explain the weird happenings and also to alleviate the fear of death

id like to believe but my mind is to analytical to let me do that

As it happens God is still the best explanation for these happenings and sheer weirdness of the universe.

If people invented religion to alleviate the fear of death, they really shot themselves in the foot inventing hell ...

Doctor DooM

robp wrote: »

As it happens God is still the best explanation for these happenings and sheer weirdness of the universe.

If people invented religion to alleviate the fear of death, they really shot themselves in the foot inventing hell ...

Perhaps, perhaps not, but to me the honest answer isn't "Goddidit", it's "I don't know, but would love to try and find out".

J C

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not, but to me the honest answer isn't "Goddidit", it's "I don't know, but would love to try and find out".

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

J C

robp wrote: »

As it happens God is still the best explanation for these happenings and sheer weirdness of the universe.

If people invented religion to alleviate the fear of death, they really shot themselves in the foot inventing hell ...

Fair point ... I'm having word pictures of an ancient proto-Atheist inventing religion in the distant past to overcome his fear of going asleep and never waking up ... and he thought up Hell as the solution to his fear of entering eternal sleep!!!:eek:

... must have been a masochist!!!:)

nozzferrahhtoo

robp wrote: »

As it happens God is still the best explanation for these happenings and sheer weirdness of the universe.

How can an entirely unsubstantiated claim be the "best explanation" for anything?

Especially when that claim does not answer anything at all, but simply moves the questions we have about the universe onto that "god".

I can not think of a single question about the universe that is answered by "god" except that that self same question must now be asked about that "god".

robp wrote: »

If people invented religion to alleviate the fear of death, they really shot themselves in the foot inventing hell ...

Probably because they invented hell for OTHER people to go to. To emotionally cajole others into accepting their religion or espousal about god rather than their own.

You can almost see it happening in your head. Some charlatan witch doctor espousing all kinds of things about god. Eventually when people get restless and doubtful you have to embellish the story. I know.... throw in some stories about some wonderful after life that will appeal to the base greed inherent in humanity.

But oh no, after some time people stop buying that too and start getting restless and doubtful. Natural next step? You do not want that wonderful after life I promised you.... well get a load of what will happen if you reject it.....

The entire tale telling is so base and HUMAN that it drips with fetid obviousness at being man made not god made.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes they are.

If you say Goddidit, then how can you say you don't know (or vice versa)?

Lady Chuckles

How about if you'd love to find out and as you do you reckon God did it?

I love science, it's ever so intriguing! I just can't help but looking at certain things from a philosophical point of view as well
I love humbly questioning most things

Delirium

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

How about if you'd love to find out and as you do you reckon God did it?

I love science, it's ever so intriguing! I just can't help but looking at certain things from a philosophical point of view as well
I love humbly questioning most things

JC is a Young Earth Creationist who claims to have evidence that God created the world 6,000 years ago. It doesn't fall under a "I don't know, lets find out" perspective.

Safehands

SW wrote: »

JC is a Young Earth Creationist who claims to have evidence that God created the world 6,000 years ago. It doesn't fall under a "I don't know, lets find out" perspective.

The only reason anybody suggests that the world is 6,000 years old is to verify the biblical story. They are working back from that. "The Bible says it so how can we prove it?" is the way they think. They do not say 'Lets look at all of the evidence from a neutral, completely objective viewpoint and see where that takes us' If they did that they would have loads of questions, but they would look at the evidence. They may start with the idea that life must have been placed on earth by some greater power. OK, lets look for the evidence.
They would undoubtedly say 'when did it all happen?' Ok, lets look at the evidence, to give us some clues. There is no evidence anywhere that suggests it all started 6 or 10 thousand years ago. The vast majority of evidence suggests that it is not possible that the world or universe is that young.

So take the bible completely out of the equation. Suppose it didn't exist, anywhere. Now tell us how the Earth is 6,000 years old from the evidence and tell us why you would even start looking at a timeframe which is so recent.

robp

Safehands wrote: »

The only reason anybody suggests that the world is 6,000 years old is to verify the biblical story. They are working back from that. "The Bible says it so how can we prove it?" is the way they think. They do not say 'Lets look at all of the evidence from a neutral, completely objective viewpoint and see where that takes us' If they did that they would have loads of questions, but they would look at the evidence. They may start with the idea that life must have been placed on earth by some greater power. OK, lets look for the evidence.
They would undoubtedly say 'when did it all happen?' Ok, lets look at the evidence, to give us some clues. There is no evidence anywhere that suggests it all started 6 or 10 thousand years ago. The vast majority of evidence suggests that it is not possible that the world or universe is that young.

So take the bible completely out of the equation. Suppose it didn't exist, anywhere. Now tell us how the Earth is 6,000 years old from the evidence and tell us why you would even start looking at a timeframe which is so recent.

Regrettable this is never possible. We all have our own prejudices, biases and agendas. No scientist can ever escape this.
For the record I completely disagree with Young-earth Creationism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How can an entirely unsubstantiated claim be the "best explanation" for anything?

Especially when that claim does not answer anything at all, but simply moves the questions we have about the universe onto that "god".

It depends what your questions are. It doesn't have to move all these questions to God. For example it clearly answers some very specific mathematical questions about the universe and also some philosophical questions relating to the meaning and values that people experience.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How can an entirely unsubstantiated claim be the "best explanation" for anything?

Especially when that claim does not answer anything at all, but simply moves the questions we have about the universe onto that "god".

I can not think of a single question about the universe that is answered by "god" except that that self same question must now be asked about that "god".

The entire tale telling is so base and HUMAN that it drips with fetid obviousness at being man made not god made.

Its so 'human' as its a rational conclusion by human based on their understanding of God. I don't know what you meant by 'god made'. All information we absorb passes through all lenses of people.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How can an entirely unsubstantiated claim be the "best explanation" for anything?

I suppose it overcomes the difficulty in giving any credibility to the alternative.

I mean, we're asked to suppose that our brains are the result of a blind, pointless process - one of whose driving forces is a staggering quantity of mutations. And that the product of this process (the brain) should be relied upon to accurately arrive at conclusions about anything at all - chief of which is it's ability to accurately arrive at conclusions about things.

If that's not the definition of a bootstrap argument then I don't know what is.

nozzferrahhtoo

robp wrote: »

No scientist can ever escape this.

No individual scientist can for sure. But the practices and methodologies of science CAN by putting in place methodologies that remove the subjective human element from the practice as much as possible.

robp wrote: »

It depends what your questions are.

Not really. An unsubstantiated and nonsense explanation for any question remains an unsubstantiated and nonsense answer regardless of what the question is or was.

robp wrote: »

It doesn't have to move all these questions to God.

Yet it does. All the questions I can think of.... maybe you can think of some I have not..... that "god" is meant to answer simply leaves one asking the same questions about "god". The well known "infinite regress" issue for example is not answered by simply making up a god and declaring by fiat that god is exempt from the issue. That is special pleading, not explanation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, we're asked to suppose that our brains are the result of a blind, pointless process

The issue is that the claim that consciousness is a result of a blind and pointless process is at least substantiated. The claim that there is a god who imbued us with this magically is not.

You are simply making "an argument from incredulity". Your credulity says nothing about the issue. The fact that all data and evidence we have points one way, while no data and evidence we have points the other, does.

So not only is the god claim a "boot strap" one, there appears to also be no boots or anyone to wear them or pull on the straps.

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo
No individual scientist can for sure. But the practices and methodologies of science CAN by putting in place methodologies that remove the subjective human element from the practice as much as possible.

Just a thought.
If science is trying to know what the universe is like objectively, i.e. as if we are not part of the equation, isn't this basically the same question that religion poses? Both seem to see the universe as a thing apart from us and what's more that their is some objective reality that we can know.
Are both based on the notion that or suspicion that we can't be trusted to know reality!
Now back to your regular programming.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

If science is trying to know what the universe is like objectively, i.e. as if we are not part of the equation, isn't this basically the same question that religion poses?

Perhaps just some linguistic pedantry, though I am not convinced as to whether it is from you or from me...... likely me..... but religion is not "posing" the question. We as humans are posing the questions about the universe and our place in it. Science and Religion are both purporting to ANSWER the questions.

The difference being that science does not claim to have answered them, is still working on trying, and does its best not to espouse any answers without substantiation. While religions often appear to be declaring "goddunit" and that all the questions are, essentially, already answered..... all of which they do without even the tiniest modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend credibility to the claim there even is a god in the first place.

I mean given that this entire thread is about the existence of god and has become very very long.... it strikes me as supremely comical at how few actual attempts to even begin to substantiate the existence of god there actually has been.

Many posts have been about the implications of god belief or religion. The imagined benegits of religion. Still others have changed the subject entirely to unrelated topics like reincarnation. A few posts have been throw away anti evolution comments. But posts or posters in the thread that actually make the attempt to argue that a god even exists..... are seriously thin on the ground. In fact I am struggling right now to even bring ONE to recall.

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps just some linguistic pedantry, though I am not convinced as to whether it is from you or from me...... likely me..... but religion is not "posing" the question. We as humans are posing the questions about the universe and our place in it. Science and Religion are both purporting to ANSWER the questions.

The difference being that science does not claim to have answered them, is still working on trying, and does its best not to espouse any answers without substantiation. While religions often appear to be declaring "goddunit" and that all the questions are, essentially, already answered..... all of which they do without even the tiniest modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that even begins to lend credibility to the claim there even is a god in the first place.

I mean given that this entire thread is about the existence of god and has become very very long.... it strikes me as supremely comical at how few actual attempts to even begin to substantiate the existence of god there actually has been.

Many posts have been about the implications of god belief or religion. The imagined benegits of religion. Still others have changed the subject entirely to unrelated topics like reincarnation. A few posts have been throw away anti evolution comments. But posts or posters in the thread that actually make the attempt to argue that a god even exists..... are seriously thin on the ground. In fact I am struggling right now to even bring ONE to recall.

Yeah, I might have worded it badly. You are right about attempting to answer the question, I was pondering if the question was the same one. I suspect it's not.
A thread this long is going to wind and turn as it grows, can't be helped, it's the nature of conversations.
Not certain it was this thread but I did give an answer as did several people , the fact that the answer didn't satisfies you doesn't mean their was no answers.
Dose God exist doesn't answer sciences questions btw. Even with proof of Gods existence we would still need science.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

I was pondering if the question was the same one. I suspect it's not.

I think linguistically it is the same one but what people mean when they ask it varies.

The question is essentially "Why is there a universe and why are we in it". A scientist and a theist can ask the exact same question with the exact same words.

But their meaning is different. The non theist is essentially asking how did it all come to be. What were the events that led to this occurrence. It makes no assumptions as to the answers there.

The theist however is essentially looking for an objective purpose from an intentional agent. WHY did this entity create us and WHAT does this entity want of us or from us. Or of the universe or from the universe. (Depending on deism or theism really).

It appears to be two different meanings of the word "why" which we could quibble pedantically over. At the end of the day however the fact is we exist in this universe and we do not have the answers as to how this came to be. Evidence, arguments, data or reasoning to suggest that the answer has anything to do with an intelligent intentional agent however appear to be precisely zero.

tommy2bad wrote: »

A thread this long is going to wind and turn as it grows, can't be helped, it's the nature of conversations.

Oh absolutely and I would not deny that. I was just commenting on the comedy inherent in the fact that for all that winding, turning, growing and evolving.... the number of times that it has actually touched on the actual topic of the thread is remarkably small. Almost zero.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not certain it was this thread but I did give an answer as did several people

Not really. There has been a few answers as to why people emotionally think there is a god. I am addressing whether anyone has actually tried to address the idea there actually is one. That people are emotionally invested in the idea there is one is unquestionable.

It is not that the answer "did not satisfy me" as you try to suggest. It is that the answers were answers to a question I do not recall ever asking. The question that I am here asking.... is there any reason to think there actually IS a god there..... has not been addressed. Much less by yourself.

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo
is there any reason to think there actually IS a god there

Well theirs a reason and it's people, people tend to think their is a God and not just as a short way of avoiding hard questions as the canard 'goddidit' would imply.
Is their any reason to think they got it right? well I think that depends on what you think their reason for thinking this is.
A lot of atheists seem to assume that people believe in God because it explains everything and they don't have to think about it any more. Some think it's a evolutionary afterefect that we should have outgrown and some think it's a form of mental illness or group hysteria.
Reason for believing in God are as varied as people as are reasons for rejecting beliefe in god/god's.
If your hoping that you will get evidence for Gods existence on a internet forum, your more in need of help than the maddest cult member. All you'l ever get is peoples reasons for believing, not for lack of evidence but for the simple reason that standards of evidence differ and differ in different contexts.

nozzferrahhtoo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well theirs a reason and it's people, people tend to think their is a God and not just as a short way of avoiding hard questions as the canard 'goddidit' would imply.

As I said I am already aware that people tend to think there is. AGAIN this is not the question I am asking. I am seeking an answer on whether there is any actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there _actually is_ one.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Is their any reason to think they got it right? well I think that depends on what you think their reason for thinking this is.

I do not presume to know. That is why I ask such people on threads such as this. The fact that no answers are forthcoming is telling.

But unless someone presents said arguments, evidence, data or reasoning I can not address or consider them. And when they do, as you have seen, I address and consider them at some great length. A lot more length in fact that suggested by your disingenuous summary of all my posts and writings as merely "not satisfying me". You with a wave of a hand and a throw away phrase attempt to make it look like I have dismissed what I have been given with a wave of a hand and a throw away phrase.

But alas that is a common event on forums that people engaged in X engage in suggesting all and sundry around them are engaged in X.

tommy2bad wrote: »

If your hoping that you will get evidence for Gods existence on a internet forum, your more in need of help than the maddest cult member.

Speak for yourself. I do not presume to know where, if at all, evidence for the existence of god might come from. If you want to declare by fiat that it will not come from an internet forum then by all means you can have your assumptions as baseless as they are. I do not share such assumptions and I remain open to evidence for any claim coming from any source. I would not be so silly as to dismiss out of hand any one source for no other reason other than your particular say so.

But do not presume I limit my inquiries just to internet forums because that is the sole point of contact you have with me. But this IS an internet forum and this IS our point of contact and I have asked you if you are aware of any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there actually is a god. Apparently the very clear answer to this is "No" though you invest no small quantity of words in dancing around that "no". Thankfully however no one is forcing you to read my posts, let alone reply to them.

H3aler

God is love, In every religion there is love but love has no religion, He is everywhere, can't you hear strange vioce in the centre of universe

Safehands

H3aler wrote: »

God is love, In every religion there is love but love has no religion, He is everywhere, can't you hear strange vioce in the centre of universe

Lovely thought. I suppose love is that wonderful, indefinable emotion which everybody strives for in their lives. If God does exist, he and love would be inseparable.
Believing this makes the bible more inaccurate. The God in nearly all religions seems to be very insecure, requiring constant praise, by way of prayer. He also appears to be vengeful and unloving if you break some very basic rules.

I prefer to think that he will love us and look after us, no matter what we do. Another lovely thought!

nozzferrahhtoo

H3aler wrote: »

God is love, In every religion there is love but love has no religion, He is everywhere, can't you hear strange vioce in the centre of universe

That is just a bit of linguistic juggling really. It sounds all pretty and lovely on paper but at the end of the day you are saying nothing at all. You are merely taking something we already have a word for (love) and relabeling it (god).

But we see this more and more these days. As the veil of human ignorance slowly but steadily recedes there are less and less people willing to stand up and claim there actually is a "god". A "god" in the sense of an intelligent conscious agent.

So we get this fuzzy and dilute new agey pandering to the word "god" by people who want to distance themselves from any kind of deism but for reasons entirely opaque to me have a fetish for the word "god" and do not want to lose it. So they redefine the term in all kinds of comical ways. "God is love" is one of them but by no means the only one.

But for me saying "god is love" is no more useful or meaningful than saying "god is cake" or "god is dildos" or "god is Van morrison". All you are doing is taking something that has a special place in your heart and sticking a new label on it.

In essence we are simply just left saying nothing at all.... but using a lot of words to say it.

smacl

tommy2bad wrote: »

A lot of atheists seem to assume that people believe in God because it explains everything and they don't have to think about it any more. Some think it's a evolutionary afterefect that we should have outgrown and some think it's a form of mental illness or group hysteria.
Reason for believing in God are as varied as people as are reasons for rejecting beliefe in god/god's.

Not doubt the reasons are many and varied, but that doesn't make them valid (or invalid). One reason that springs to my mind as an atheist is inability to deal with mortality. If you tell a child from a young age that they're immortal, and that god is the source of that immortality, it is a good reason to believe in god. If you then go on to tell them that the parents and grandparents they love are immortal, they really want to believe this, as the potential death of a parent is a very scary thing for a young child.

In poorer cultures, where the lower strata of society have a very harsh life, the promise of a better next life would conceivably be the one thing they look forward to. Again, god is linked to immortality, but also to a better future life away from poverty.

My suspicion is that the reason many people believe in god is the fear of death on the one hand, and the promise of a better life on the other. Hell and eternal damnation used to be the stick to go with this carrot back in the day, but it has been dropped to a large extent in modern western culture. Pretty much the same way that Santa brings ever more presents, but not so much coal any more.

Personally, I like my mortality. It gives me a sufficient sense of urgency to keep apathy at bay and achieve my modest goals in life. If I thought I was immortal, I doubt I'd ever get up of my fat ass

tommy2bad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said I am already aware that people tend to think there is. AGAIN this is not the question I am asking. I am seeking an answer on whether there is any actual arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest there _actually is_ one.

Sorry, we seem to be talking across each other here. I'm not offering evidence for the existence of God because their isn't any. It's not that hard to understand realy. Their is no empirical evidence for the existence of God or Gods or any supernatural beings.
That's not to say that belief in God, Gods and supernatural beings is irrational or unjustified.
As I said in my explanation, the test for me is the effect belief has on me, not some objective proof which is frankly no use to me at all.
I have objective proof of lots of things from big bangs to water on Mars. Interesting as it all is, it makes no difference to me day to day.
So the question why do you belief in God makes no sense if the only reason to believe in something is proof of it's objective existence. Their are other reasons which are just as important as objective reality.

You keep asking for evidence and I know that you mean objective scientifically providable evidence. Their is none. That's why I said you'll find none on an internet forum or anywhere else.

H3aler

Safehands wrote: »

Lovely thought. I suppose love is that wonderful, indefinable emotion which everybody strives for in their lives. If God does exist, he and love would be inseparable.
Believing this makes the bible more inaccurate. The God in nearly all religions seems to be very insecure, requiring constant praise, by way of prayer. He also appears to be vengeful and unloving if you break some very basic rules.

I prefer to think that he will love us and look after us, no matter what we do. Another lovely thought!

love is universal concept, it is the only religion that can unite all the christian--muslims--jews--atheists-- under one flag-- no blood shed for any theory or any religion-- each religion claims, each is true but all is against universal concept of love-- we human should finsh off all these races -- countires-- nations-- religion that divides us-- that bring hate between us-- We should drink the wine of love-- Every thing in the universe is dancing-- You can watch this dance with love--- you can dance with love

let us dance christian/muslims/jews/atheist-- drink the cup of love

H3aler

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is just a bit of linguistic juggling really. It sounds all pretty and lovely on paper but at the end of the day you are saying nothing at all. You are merely taking something we already have a word for (love) and relabeling it (god).

But we see this more and more these days. As the veil of human ignorance slowly but steadily recedes there are less and less people willing to stand up and claim there actually is a "god". A "god" in the sense of an intelligent conscious agent.

So we get this fuzzy and dilute new agey pandering to the word "god" by people who want to distance themselves from any kind of deism but for reasons entirely opaque to me have a fetish for the word "god" and do not want to lose it. So they redefine the term in all kinds of comical ways. "God is love" is one of them but by no means the only one.

But for me saying "god is love" is no more useful or meaningful than saying "god is cake" or "god is dildos" or "god is Van morrison". All you are doing is taking something that has a special place in your heart and sticking a new label on it.

In essence we are simply just left saying nothing at all.... but using a lot of words to say it.

I am not but love, i don't lebel myself anything special, we are all human, humanity is my religion-- every religion propagates a special version -- every religion divides and lebels it followers-- I don't divide any one-- My God is love-- who doesn't reward christian because he is christian--muslim--jews-- who doesn't discrimate between his children-- the nice children-- That kind of concept that is universal is sound very convincing to me than all these limited concept like there is no God--- Chirst is God-- Bagwan is God-- etc

smacl

H3aler wrote: »

Chirst is God-- Bagwan is God-- etc

Good 'ol Chirst hey! Don't see too many rajneeshi's round these parts any more either. I'll have a bowl of whatever it is you're smoking my friend, seems like happy happy stuff :pac:

H3aler

smacl wrote: »

Good 'ol Chirst hey! Don't see too many rajneeshi's round these parts any more either. I'll have a bowl of whatever it is you're smoking my friend, seems like happy happy stuff :pac:

Dear smacl, In a love house, the echo of music never stops, the wall sing stange songs and everything dance-- do you see dance in the centre of universe-- Love has no religion but in every religion there is love

smacl

H3aler wrote: »

Dear smacl, In a love house, the echo of music never stops, the wall sing stange songs and everything dance-- do you see dance in the centre of universe-- Love has no religion but in every religion there is love

Yes indeed, the weekend approaches. Don't take too many of those blue pills, all that love, religion, strange songs and freaky dancing may leave you with a dry mouth on Monday morning. That aside, enjoy!

Geomy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqK6u0kCS9Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player