Logical proofs for God

Playboy

Also Fysh why are you bringing anthropic reasoning into the argument.. If anything it helps to prove the opposite of your point. Drake's equation is a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.. wtf has that got to do with anything? Also the point still stands that both of these theories are based in a logical way of reasoning.. what gives a logical way of reasoning more validity than any other way of reasoning?

Dades

Playboy wrote:

logic is a construct? Its an invention of man .. its a way of understanding the world. Your belief in logic is exactly the same as someone else's belief in pink unicorns. Don’t u get it? Man invented logic. Ofc other points of view don’t make sense if you try and understand everything with logic.

But is logic not the only way we can actually use to try and verify whether something exists or not?

If we enter a debate on the existance of an entity, and leave our logic hats at the door what are we left with? If we recognise that (as per your analogy) we do not have the cognisance to form the thoughts that will lead us to the truth then why waste time with idle speculation in some field of thought that can lead us nowhere?

Once logic is gone, all we are left with is wild speculation that is open to argument from anybody with a bigger vocabulary. If we know that we don't know why would anybody attempt to understand the "truth", and then get perturbed when people are sceptical...

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

Also Fysh why are you bringing anthropic reasoning into the argument.. If anything it helps to prove the opposite of your point. Drake's equation is a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.. wtf has that got to do with anything? Also the point still stands that both of these theories are based in a logical way of reasoning.. what gives a logical way of reasoning more validity than any other way of reasoning?

Because anthropic reasoning is being used by Catsmokinpot. To say "we've evolved, and we're special, therefore there must be a Great Designer" without any concrete analysis or understanding of the existence or otherwise of life outside our world is to use anthropic reasoning. Drake's Equation is a handy way of trying to show that assuming we are the only lifeforms in the universe (and by extension that we are special for it and must have been made by someone) is a flawed or at least incomplete assumption.

As for why is a logical form of reasoning more valid than any other? Well, I haven't seen any form of "reasoning" on display, and I'm saying logical reasoning is more valid than no reasoning. Forming conclusions based on available evidence strikes me as being more likely to result in a worldview analogous to the actual world than forming conclusions based on what I'd like. And at the end of the day, a worldview that accurately maps the actual world is what I'm looking for. Your mileage may vary, etc.


Back to my "faith" in logic. Yes, I know. Well done. We invented it and have no guarantees that it's perfect. However, logical reasoning has given us scientific disciplines which have managed to model and understand the world and give us many revolutionary inventions. Central to this is the notion of accepting that theories must be discarded or enhanced if they can be proven to be wrong or incomplete. It is the willingness to discard anything that does not fit the evidence gathered from the real world that makes logical reasoning distinct from others - it is still a human construct and it is still subject to the same holes as any form of belief that requires you to accept that what you see and sense as being the world is accurate, but it's the best one we've got. Science has given us medicine, communications technology, electronics. Other forms of reasoning cannot lay claim to anything like that.

As for the dog....while we may have inferior intellects compared to other creatures, the fact remains that as far as we understand it we have the ability to create valid models of the universe using tools we have developed, and refine them when necessary. Dogs cannot do this because they lack the minimum cognitive abilities to do so. Given that very few human beings truly understand the full implications of quantum mechanics, it's pretty daft to expect a creature not biologically equipped for it to do so. However, there's no reason to assume that because we can't fully understand things currently, that we won't ever understand them better. I haven't got any proof that we will comprehend everything eventually and freely admit this; however, that is the way I lean and I would strive for us as a species to make the attempt rather than give up assuming that it must be greater than us.

Whether we will ever know everything is unknowable, as is the existence of God. So from a logical perspective, I go with the current evidence. There is, for me, no convincing evidence that god exists. There is no evidence either way in terms of understanding everything - there are still things we don't understand at all, but on the other hand over the last 500 years we have made huge advances in terms of our understanding of the world. Ultimately I expect we'll have to just wait and see.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

Indeed. Science has had very little to say either way. But if that's your argument in favour of god, you'll be accepting the existence of invisible hermaphroditic pink unicorns and insane anal-fisting dwarves named Klaus because I could present the same arguments regarding their existence.

Or, put shortly, the onus is on you to prove something exists, not on me to prove it doesn't exist. Otherwise things just get silly..

im sorry you sifted some crappy unicorn notion of the internet from your nerdy one track mind athiest internet gang to belittle my own slightly more rational ideas, although i wouldnt be surprised if there were anal fisting dwarves; the germans are pretty whacko when it comes to that sort of thing.

Fysh wrote:

Do you have any conception of how vast the universe is? And how long its currently estimated lifespan is? Because, if you do and you had any understanding of Drake's equation, you'd understand that actually the emergence of life doesn't necessarily represent the existence of a higher power. I'd encourage you to read a bit about anthropic reasoning and Drake's equation if you want to understand my position on this subject further..

i have read about the drake equation infact i have posted on boards about this subject before..... need i explain to you again that these are only men who think of these equations with only a limited idea of what they are talking about. again its a theory i think most scientists will tell you that looking at a model usually is nothing like the real thing and it still doesnt suggest that god doesnt exist and the point i was making before about the complexity life is nothing like a rock...... or a burning gas sun or a sulpher lake on venus are its not only the fact that its rare its the difference in complexity between the two

Fysh wrote:

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way I would accept the emergence of life as being indidative of a higher power would be if we found conclusively that there was no life anywhere else in the universe.

And a possibility is that it is. Look at our solar system. Even within that there are expectations that Mars or Europa may have, at some point, been host to lifeforms. And that's just the local neighbourhood. Quite why you assume that life is unique and special to the Earth when we've got comparatively little evidence regarding life elsewhere is beyond me. I'm remdined of the alleged joke about statisticians, mathematicians, astrophysicists (the one with the "in scotland there is at least one field with at least one sheep at least one half of which is black" punchline).

im open to the possibility that there is life on other planets infact if their isnt life on other planets it would be an awfull waste of space

Fysh wrote:

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to logic thanks.

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to my god theory thanks.

Fysh wrote:

So, us being alone in the universe matches your previously suggested belief in a higher power how? In a Stephen-King's-"IT"-style "God is dead" way? Not that I'm about to convert or anything, but it would probably make it easier to discuss this if I had a reasonable idea where you're coming from.

i was being sarcastic but obviously i have to be lame ass sarcastic with you, maybe if i think of some alternate unicorn notion, a kind of Vnicorn if you will but i dont have that much time on my hands. the words you should have taken out of what i said were "as far as i know"

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

But is logic not the only way we can actually use to try and verify whether something exists or not?

If we enter a debate on the existance of an entity, and leave our logic hats at the door what are we left with? If we recognise that (as per your analogy) we do not have the cognisance to form the thoughts that will lead us to the truth then why waste time with idle speculation in some field of thought that can lead us nowhere?

Once logic is gone, all we are left with is wild speculation that is open to argument from anybody with a bigger vocabulary. If we know that we don't know why would anybody attempt to understand the "truth", and then get perturbed when people are sceptical...

once all logic is gone you become human..... logic isnt being there. isnt actually knowing. when you leave logic at the door you are left with ideas.... i mean if you were christopher columbus for instance, would you have gone and sailed off to a place where noone has returned from?
a place that everyone says just drops off in to the abyss and you get killed?
i mean there was no solid proof that the world was round other than going there....... you cant comment on something with no solid, expect people to swallow it and mock people who dont just because you say so... all you can do is give an idea and have someone politely tell you their opinion on the matter

my point has always been and still is that there is no reason why someone cant believe in god cause they will be mocked for it, just because a bunch of lads got together and realised without any proof that their is no god and we are all just crazy ans should believe them

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

im sorry you sifted some crappy unicorn notion of the internet from your nerdy one track mind athiest internet gang to belittle my own slightly more rational ideas, although i wouldnt be surprised if there were anal fisting dwarves; the germans are pretty whacko when it comes to that sort of thing.

*sigh*

The invisible pink unicorn idea was supposed to try and highlight to irrationality of ascribing any qualities whatsoever to a creature in whom those qualities are not apparent. So just as an the colour of an invisible unicorn is irrelevant, so I think that discussing the properties or attributes of a god whose existence has no explicit proof is irrational. You are welcome to differ, but don't expect me to agree with you.

As for the insane dwarf named klaus, consider it a sense of humour test. And never mind, because you failed it. (although in fairness to you it's a pretty damn obscure test).

catsmokinpot wrote:

i have read about the drake equation infact i have posted on boards about this subject before..... need i explain to you again that these are only men who think of these equations with only a limited idea of what they are talking about. again its a theory i think most scientists will tell you that looking at a model usually is nothing like the real thing and it still doesnt suggest that god doesnt exist and the point i was making before about the complexity life is nothing like a rock...... or a burning gas sun or a sulpher lake on venus are its not only the fact that its rare its the difference in complexity between the two

You don't need to explain anything to me. I have a physics degree, as it happens, so I know something about scientists, how they think, and the Drake equation. No doubt you'll respond telling me about all the physicists you've heard of who believe in God. Get this :

I.
Don't.
Care.

There has been no proof presented to me that would change my mind about whether God exists. God, specifically, as opposed to just "phenomena we can't currently explain". Talking to me about how complicated life is and how, because of that, it must have been guided by a Divine Intellect does nothing for me - in the last century we have discovered scientific evidence for, and started manipulating in increasingly complex and sophisticated ways, matter at the atomic level. We have no idea if there is life on other planets; but until you have concrete proof that we are the only intelligent lifeforms ever to evolve in the universe, the "complexity of life" argument doesn't hold water as evidence for a higher intellect as far as I'm concerned. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect people to agree that this is the logical thing to do.

im open to the possibility that there is life on other planets infact if their isnt life on other planets it would be an awfull waste of space

catsmokinpot wrote:

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to my god theory thanks.

OK, apparently you are smoking pot. You have no actual evidence in favour of your notion of God, and yet you claim that there is more evidence for your cause than for not believing in God? Fine, whatever. Around about now, this is getting even more boring than it already was, since I'm saying "your statement is not logical; hold the belief by all means, but don't claim it's logical" and you're saying that logic is on your side. *yawn* already.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i was being sarcastic but obviously i have to be lame ass sarcastic with you, maybe if i think of some alternate unicorn notion, a kind of Vnicorn if you will but i dont have that much time on my hands. the words you should have taken out of what i said were "as far as i know"

Yes, nice try at the put down, you might even get a point for effort, but...how shall I put this....you completely failed to answer my question. You've failed utterly to explain what your perspective is, meaning that the discussion is progressing as briskly as the tomb, and you apparently feel that this is ok so long as you try (and fail miserably, I might add) to be funny. If you feel like explaining where you're coming from in a bit more depth so we're on a bit more of an even footing, it would be appreciated. Until then I think I'm going to give up on this less-than-entertaining thread. Yay. You've won. Feel better now?

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

*sigh*

Yes, nice try at the put down, you might even get a point for effort, but...how shall I put this....you completely failed to answer my question. You've failed utterly to explain what your perspective is, meaning that the discussion is progressing as briskly as the tomb, and you apparently feel that this is ok so long as you try (and fail miserably, I might add) to be funny. If you feel like explaining where you're coming from in a bit more depth so we're on a bit more of an even footing, it would be appreciated. Until then I think I'm going to give up on this less-than-entertaining thread. Yay. You've won. Feel better now?

im coming from an open mind......
completely forget about what i believe in

i unlike yourself am open to new ideas.

1.i am not telling you to believe in god

2. i am not telling you not to believe in god

3. i am telling you to be open to ideas!!!!!!

4. i am telling you that the belief in god is not stupid given the alternatives which are after all based on observation by men, the same men who through science have got it wrong who following the same line of "logical" thought have got it wrong before........

and i should just believe what they have said? just because you dont care???.. that is laughable

Dades

Look.

Nobody is trying to tell anyone else what they should believe. This is a thread on a philosophy message board. If somebody puts forth a theory (e.g. it is logical to believe in god) then users of differing views are going to argue against it. Not will the express purpose of knocking it, or converting your way of thinking, but for the sake of debate. I mean that's why we're here isn't it?

Nobody is mocking anybody elses belief either. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a frequently used tongue-in-cheek concept as a defence to frequently used claims by different minded individuals. Healthy debate is neither a witch hunt or mob rule. I just think you're acting a tad defensive, Catsmokin.

Anyway...

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i mean if you were christopher columbus for instance, would you have gone and sailed off to a place where noone has returned from?
a place that everyone says just drops off in to the abyss and you get killed?

The difference is that Columbus could prove or disprove his theory by simply sailing west. There was also evidence that led him to believe that he would reach the Indies. He didn't just attempt it because he wanted to believe it.

We can believe what we want about the existance of a god, but nothing we could ever do or think will verify it.

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

Look.

Nobody is trying to tell anyone else what they should believe. This is a thread on a philosophy message board. If somebody puts forth a theory (e.g. it is logical to believe in god) then users of differing views are going to argue against it. Not will the express purpose of knocking it, or converting your way of thinking, but for the sake of debate. I mean that's why we're here isn't it?

Nobody is mocking anybody elses belief either. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a frequently used tongue-in-cheek concept as a defence to frequently used claims by different minded individuals. Healthy debate is neither a witch hunt or mob rule. I just think you're acting a tad defensive, Catsmokin.

Anyway...

The difference is that Columbus could prove or disprove his theory by simply sailing west. There was also evidence that led him to believe that he would reach the Indies. He didn't just attempt it because he wanted to believe it.

We can believe what we want about the existance of a god, but nothing we could ever do or think will verify it.

columbus had an idea, a belief that there was more out there, when the majority of everyone else around him thought he was mental, because apparently it was "common knowledge" at the time that the world was flat

you cant rely on your common knowledge even if you cant prove it

and what about the people who believed the world was round before columbus but couldn't prove it? were they all crackpots?

fysh was saying he couldn't accept the possibility that god exists

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for.

now again, understand why people would choose not believe in god but not accepting the possibility is ridiculous

scientists only have a slight clue as to what the hell they are talking about they still don't know what's under most of our sea's and your still willing to fully trust logic and science

and what do you mean a tad defensive? when someone gives you a different opinion about something which is contrary to your beliefs, all you can do is defend your own beliefs! so thanks for stating the obvious.......

nobody's mocking my beliefs? what's this about anal fisting dwarves then? please dont try to say it was a comparison

Playboy

I think the Atheist is open to new ideas but chooses not to believe in God because that is his choice and the information presented to him over his life doesnt convince him of God's existence. I think Fysh is a different matter. Fysh did a degree in Physics and has fallen into the trap where he thinks science and the scientific method is the be all and end all. If fysh cant apply the scientific method to something then it doesnt exist and anyone else who thinks differently to him is stupid.

Fysh

Against my better judgement, I return yet again.

My stance is, and has always been, that there is not enough logical evidence to convince me of the idea that there is such a thing as is usually described by the term "God". Your comparison to Columbus would only work if you found some way to go where man has not previously gone and find some proof of God's existence. I will happily change stance if/when this happens.

I'm not closed permanently to the idea of God - I just don't feel that the current evidence is convincing enough for me. You'll note that I have used expressions like "finding it difficult to believe" rather than saying outright that god does not exist. More importantly I must make the distinction that I certainly do not believe that God cannot exist - I would agree with the notion previously espoused that ultimately we are all agnostic as we cannot know for certain. My opinion leans away from the existence of God; I don't object to someone believing in God, nor does it make me think that they must be stupid for doing so; but I do take issue with the claim that believing in God is logical, for reasons I have already attempted to outline (although if someone really wants me to I can go into more detail about them).

I don't happen to consider the scientific method the "be all and end all", I just find it to be the most reliable tool for sharing and testing ideas given that, as a species, we are as yet lumbered with imperfect linguistic systems as a means of communication. I've yet to have anyone describe to me another system of reasoning that does not have its origin in either logical thinking or the scientific method, and am starting to get fed up of people telling me I've fallen into the trap of one way of thinking without explaining what they perceive the alternatives as being.

As for trusting science, I've said it before and I'll say it again : I trust science and its methods because when it doesn't know something, it admits it. When a theory is imperfect and a better one is arrived at, the old one is discarded. When was the last time you saw any major religion discard old teachings because "they don't really make sense based on what we know today"? More commonly there's an awkward effort to reconcile new discoveries with the old teachings. But science makes a point of questioning everything, and that's what makes me happy to use the method. It does not demand that I accept anything if I'm not satisfied by the evidence for it. And I think you're trying to ignore this by saying "but logic's a human construct", yet you've failed to provide any system of reasoning which does not either base itself on using the evidence you perceive from the world around you or the idea of forming a chain of reasoning using that evidence.

As for the anal fisting dwarves - it's a reference to a previous expression of the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument I used and a reference to an offensive but funny webcomic I am a fan of. I chose the image because it is a challenging one, and my intent was to suggest that if someone were to argue in favour of the existence of an unpleasant-sounding creature using the same arguments that are used to argue for the existence of God, those people would be scorned. In many cases I find that the arguments for the existence of God have the weight of history, tradition, and established major religions behind them - without necessarily being good arguments in themselves. So I'm sorry if you perceived that as an insult; it wasn't meant that way, although I know that my posting style does quite often come off as sarcastic and dismissive.

Playboy

Interesting couple of articles that i found

Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist determines is one sided. There are experiences that science and logic cannot explain and these experiences are real. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.

There is no God
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.
I believe there is no God
To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
There is no evidence for God
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the possibility of God's existence.
If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
I lack belief in God.
To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A.
I don't believe in God.
Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?
Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.
But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.

Fysh

Interesting in some respects (eg the argument about humanism, which I agree with in so far as I don't think that humanism can disprove the existence of God - although the problem is that if humanism is the examination of natural laws, and god is outside our reality, can the humanistic method be extended to examine the "outside reality" that god inhabits?)

However, I take issue with a few things :

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

This also works the other way, meaning that no more can one definitively say that god does exist than they can claim he does not exist. Strangely, given that the tone is fairly rampantly pro-theistic, this part is not mentioned or examined in any depth.

If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?

What logical proof is there that proves God's existence? If the onus of proof is on me as the disprover, we go back to the invisible pink unicorn (or, depending on how offensive you find it, invisible psychotic anal-fisting dwarf called Claus) notion. My point here is that I don't think there is logical evidence for God's existence. It's faintly irritating that the article will happily try and use article to defend itself in one place but then claim in another place that logical arguments (eg humanism) are irrelevant because they don't apply to God.

I don't believe in God.
Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

I genuinely don't understand the inclusion of this part. It makes the whole argument exceptionally personal, without providing any indication of what the answer would be if the questions were asked the other way. Again, pretty blatantly pro-theistic, but then again, I've seen this before anyway. It's the level of argument that tends to get boring for both sides. (Yes, I know I've been guilty of making this argument fairly boring myself).

Dades

Playboy,

HOW could you post such biased drivel as that in the midst of intelligent ( ) discussion?

Okay so the fact that it's lifted off the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY website explains why all pro-god arguments gloss over the flip side every time.

This is my personal favourite:

There is no evidence for God
This is not a logical position since we cannot know all possible evidences for God's existence.

UNBELIEVABLE. You cannot disbelieve the existance of god through lack of evidence - because there is evidence there that we just don't know about. Genius.

I'm aware every side must push their case but those arguments are just disingenuous.

Playboy

Atheist it’s a perfectly viable philosophical argument. It’s a very similar to my analogy with the dog. You can’t say no evidence exists unless you assume that humans can know all things and humans do know all things. All you can say is that you don’t know if God exists. Instead of calling the articles drivel try and discredit each point you find fault with. It doesn’t really matter where the argument comes from, if you can’t undermine the argument then you either have to assume you are wrong or that at this level of argument that there are no right answers.

On the same point to Fysh, no one is saying here that evidence exists to prove Gods existence. I pointed out that it is just as logical to say God exists as that he does not exist. It has been your standpoint that it is illogical to believe in God and that there is no evidence for God. I have always stated that my belief in a 'God' or 'force' in the universe is a belief based on the information presented to me over the course of my life.

Fysh

I think you're not making a distinction in what I'm saying that I have probably not made clear enough.

When I say "I don't think there's any logical evidence for the existence of God", I'm referring to evidence that I am aware of now. Which in itself is a subset of the evidence available to the scientific commnunity. I'm not suggesting that this is in any way to be considered as being equivalent to all evidence that could ever be available - I have said that I'm open to changing my mind on presentation of adequate evidence, whatever that might be.

There is a marked difference between "there can never be evidence to prove god exists" and "I haven't seen evidence that god exists" - it is effectively the difference between hardline atheism and agnosticism.

On a separate note:

a) it is rather disingenuous to post such an article without providing the source link;
b)I have already posted my objections or responses to three points within the article. How about you attempt to defend them, instead of saying that Atheist pointing out that they are very markedly biased (which you cannot deny they are; or at least, if you want this conversation to go anywhere you can't) is pointless. You've repeatedly referred to my adherence to the scientific method as me "falling into a trap" - why is it suddenly different if The Atheist refers to rigorously biased arguments from the staunchly religious field as being an equal sort of trap?

Dades

I think the problem with the arguments as a whole (must generalise - I've had a busy day) is that they can be turned so easily against the very belief they are trying to assert.

Playboy wrote:

Atheist it’s a perfectly viable philosophical argument. It’s a very similar to my analogy with the dog. You can’t say no evidence exists unless you assume that humans can know all things and humans do know all things. All you can say is that you don’t know if God exists.

I consider this a mind-bogglingly weak argument. This argument is a construct of those who would have you believe that something exists, despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever. We want you to believe in our notional figure so we are stating that you cannot know all the evidence that we also don't know.

I am always open to the possibility that there are things beyond our perception, but to try to define what we simply do not know is just pointless. And then to have someone who has done this tell you that you cannot believe what you do by virtue of what they have decided is just irritating.

Have a nice weekend!

SkepticOne

My own view is that we can't regard the existence of God as a 'fact' until evidence is forthcoming to decide the issue. In the meantime, if we choose, we have Occam's razor, Pascals wager, subjective religious experience etc. None of these stand up in the face of logical scrutiny but people are free, if they wish, to form a position on the question of god if they so wish or they can simply not hold a belief at all on the subject.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

I think you're not making a distinction in what I'm saying that I have probably not made clear enough.

When I say "I don't think there's any logical evidence for the existence of God", I'm referring to evidence that I am aware of now. Which in itself is a subset of the evidence available to the scientific commnunity. I'm not suggesting that this is in any way to be considered as being equivalent to all evidence that could ever be available - I have said that I'm open to changing my mind on presentation of adequate evidence, whatever that might be.

There is a marked difference between "there can never be evidence to prove god exists" and "I haven't seen evidence that god exists" - it is effectively the difference between hardline atheism and agnosticism.

On a separate note:

a) it is rather disingenuous to post such an article without providing the source link;
b)I have already posted my objections or responses to three points within the article. How about you attempt to defend them, instead of saying that Atheist pointing out that they are very markedly biased (which you cannot deny they are; or at least, if you want this conversation to go anywhere you can't) is pointless. You've repeatedly referred to my adherence to the scientific method as me "falling into a trap" - why is it suddenly different if The Atheist refers to rigorously biased arguments from the staunchly religious field as being an equal sort of trap?

You made two points both of which I answered .. your last point wasnt really a point. I never said that there was hard evidence for a belief in God. A belief in his existence or non existence is exactly that .. a belief. It is impossible to prove or disprove either point of view .. I entered this argument to defend Catsmokinpot's point of view that it isnt illogical or stupid to believe in a God. Im not trying to prove to anyone that he exists or that I know he exists for a fact .. my aim was always to point out we just dont know and that we probably never will. Under those circumstances people make up their own mind on what they want to believe or not to believe. What I do take issue with is a scientific point of view where we are told that he doesnt exist. I also take probably a bigger issue with a religious point of view where we are told that he does exist and that we are supposed to live our lives in a certain way.

Fysh

Put it this way : the logical method, for me, indicates that in order to claim that something exists or that something functions a certain way, there must be evidence provided to substantiate the claim. Without this evidence, the claim cannot be evaluated in a logical manner.

So, when you freely admit that you don't think there's enough evidence either way to decide whether God exists or not, you get to a point where you have to admit that there is not a valid logical argument (which was the original point of this thread) in favour of God's existence. That doesn't mean you can't believe it anyway - just that the belief does not have a logical argument behind it.

Where my personal stance comes into this is with the use of Occam's Razor. Given the choice of "entity exists beyond our realm of perception and its properties are effectively unknowable" or "entity does not exist", the current evidence inclines me to go with the latter. I would consider this to be a logical conclusion to draw. There is no permanence attributed to this conclusion - evidence may well turn up at some point in the future which changes my mind.

In short : I've not seen anything that makes me believe in a higher force or intellect. Until such evidence is available to me, I refuse to accept God's existence as being logically proven. It is a belief people are welcome to hold if they wish; but it is not, to me, a logical conclusion to draw.

Playboy

Fysh .. at the pains of me repeating myself .. A belief in God's non existence is just as logical or illogical as a belief in his existence. The only logical thing you can say is that you dont know. So please dont try and preach that a belief in his non existence is the logical conclusion to make.

Phil_321

Playboy wrote:

Fysh .. at the pains of me repeating myself .. A belief in God's non existence is just as logical or illogical as a belief in his existence. The only logical thing you can say is that you dont know. So please dont try and preach that a belief in his non existence is the logical conclusion to make.

Yeah, it is also illogical to deny the existance of invisible pink unicorns and that the centre of the earth is made of cheese. The only logical thing you can say is that you dont know. So please dont try and preach that a belief in their non existence is the logical conclusion to make.

Ron DMC

Phil_321 wrote:

Yeah, it is also illogical to deny the existance of invisible pink unicorns and that the centre of the earth is made of cheese.

It'd be impossible for the centre of the earth to be made of cheese. The consistency of cheese would never stand up to the intense pressures down there. More likely some kind of molten rock core.

Phil_321

Incorrect, you are assuming that it's standard cheddar cheese we're talking about here. That is an illogical assumption because as you have learned from this thread, everything exists until proven otherwise; As the world around us is such amazing place and everything "works like clockwork", there is a high probability that a super heat resistant cheese resides in the centre of the earth.

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

Fysh .. at the pains of me repeating myself .. A belief in God's non existence is just as logical or illogical as a belief in his existence. The only logical thing you can say is that you dont know. So please dont try and preach that a belief in his non existence is the logical conclusion to make.

I don't know, for definite, if there is a god or not. On the current evidence the logical conclusion, at least as far as I'm concerend, is that he's not there. As elaborated on in my previous post. I freely accept that this is in no way a final conclusion that may or may not be changed at a later point.

But, going by your argument, I have to accept the existence of any hypothetical creature until the end of the universe, at which point all evidence we could ever know would have been made available to us and we can start going through the list going "santa claus? hah, that was a stupid one. Easter bunny? hey, whaddya know....pixies? nope." etc etc.

Logic doesn't have a final pronouncement to make on the issue. But on the current evidence it doesn't side with you. I'm not sure what makes you think otherwise, and I'd be happy to discuss it further if you elaborate on why you think my conclusion cannot be described as logical (again, see previous post for details on how I've reached this).

Playboy

It is only illogical to think that God exists if you try and define what God is.Im not defining what God is. I believe that there is something outside of us that we do not understand. I believe this because of certain experiences I have had and because of the way I feel. We know very little about the universe and what we do know about it would lead me to the conclusion that it was not an accident. What makes people think that the universe and life is an accident? If you want evidence take a look around. The mind boggling mystery of life should be enough evidence for anyone to assume that there is something greater at work here. When you take a stance that says that God does not exist based on current evidence then there is an error in your logic. You cant say that something does not exist because you dont have evidence for its existence. What you can say is that there is no evidence that I have come across that would point to the existence of a God. Which is the same thing as saying I dont know.

Fysh

The "mind boggling mystery of life"? Put it this way - for every planet I've set foot on so far, life has emerged. 100% success rate over a relevant time frame so far. We've not got enough information about other planets in our own galaxy, never mind planets in other galaxies, to start talking in any definitive way about how mysterious and improbable (or otherwise) life is. We don't "think" there's life on the other planets, but hell - only one species on this planet has, as far as we know, developed global communications networks and the means to get offplanet. Even if there is life on one of the other planets orbiting the sun, that doesn't mean it would have to have evolved sufficient intelligence to get to that stage of development at a similar time frame to us. Nor is our own understanding of intelligence and communication the only one possible.

As for the "no evidence" part, I refer you - again - to the previously expressed point. Once you start accepting that something can exist without having any evidence for it, you're firmly out of the realm of logic. Believe it all you like, but you will have to renounce logic when defending that belief. Like it or not, that's what logic means.

As for stating I don't know - this is getting extremely tiresome. I have already stated, in my previous post for example, that I readily accept there is no definitive proof either way and as such, technically, none of us (including you) know. We both have opinions on the matter; the difference being that I look at the lack of evidence for God and say "logic dictates that without evidence to support a claim it should not be accepted", and therefore do not accept the claims that god exists (while being open to being proven wrong with new evidence). You claim that even without evidence proving God's existence, the logical conclusion is still that God exists. That's where my problem is. Without evidence, you have no logical argument. End of story. You have a belief, or a point of view, or whatever you want to call it. But for all your claims otherwise, you do not have a logical argument backing up your statement.

To be perfectly honest, I'm pretty sick of you patronising me telling me that strictly speaking I can't know if God exists and yet going on about how convinced you are that God exists in the same post. How about at least trying for a bit of consistency in tone, if you're going to have the discussion?

Dades

FFS until somebody defines what "GOD" means, everyone can beat their heads against the wall.

I suspect Playboy is using the term GOD loosely to define some unknown entity that is responsible for the universe as we recognise it. Mankind believes that everything must come some something - i.e. must be created. Therefore our universe must have come from somewhere/something in our logic. But because we draw a blank as to the origins of matter the "logical" conclusion is that a creator figure exists.

However (IMO);

It may be logical to think that there must be a entity responsible for everything we know - but it's not logical to believe in the existance of something that we have absolutely no evidence of, and that owes it's supposed existance to our ignorance.

So human logic dictates that we should believe, but also that we shouldn't.

Go figure.

Playboy

You cannot say that something does not exist because you don’t have evidence for its existence. That is an illogical statement. I didn’t have any evidence for your existence b4 I started this conversation with you. Is it logical then to say that you didn’t exist b4 this debate? As I said before you cannot deny the existence of something because you don’t have any evidence for it. All you can say is that you don’t have any evidence that points to the existence of whatever you are talking about. This might be a small point but it is crucial when discussing the notion of God. Using logic you cannot say as a fact that God does not exist. It is not illogical to believe in the existence of something you do not have evidence for. We do not know everything therefore we can logically say that that stuff exists for which we have no evidence for. The argument only becomes illogical when you try and define that which we have no evidence for. Then God becomes the mystery of our existence and an indefinable thing which we have no evidence for. Show me the flaws in my logic here please. If you have a problem thinking that life is not mystery then you seriously need to start thinking about life. It is the height of arrogance that not even the most genius of scientists would assume to say that life is not a mystery..

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

You cannot say that something does not exist because you don’t have evidence for its existence.That is an illogical statement. I didn’t have any evidence for your existence b4 I started this conversation with you. Is it logical then to say that you didn’t exist b4 this debate?

You can argue that, yes, it is. This goes back to the whole mind-body problem, which still does not have an adequate resolution. You can choose to believe that I existed before the debate, as I can choose to believe you did. However, in the way of actual proof....well, you could trust the boards database and view my post history. But that could be faked. Or you could trust the government database and check my birth cert or passport. But that could also be faked. Ultimately, it can be argued, you haven't seen it yourself therefore you don't have proof.

Playboy wrote:

As I said before you cannot deny the existence of something because you don’t have any evidence for it. All you can say is that you don’t have any evidence that points to the existence of whatever you are talking about.

I'm seriously starting to think that you're stupid here. I have been saying the above for several posts now, and you keep missing the point. Go read about Occam's razor, then look at the post earlier on where I said "this is why I don't think it's logical to believe in something without proof". Then, maybe, you'll start to feel a bit silly for dictating to me how I should be using logical tools, when I've been mentioning specifics and you keep being vague saying "but you can't because I say so".

Playboy wrote:

This might be a small point but it is crucial when discussing the notion of God. Using logic you cannot say as a fact that God does not exist. It is not illogical to believe in the existence of something you do not have evidence for.

I know this, and I genuinely think you're either being thick or just not reading my posts for the fact that you still keep wittering on about it. I have said, repeatedly, that I do not thing there is a God based on current evidence. I don't know how many more times I have to say it before it sinks in for you; maybe you want it spoken to you from a burning tree or something, I don't know.

I choose to believe that my senses are not being tricked or manipulated and that the world I perceive is sufficiently similar to the objectively real world for me to build models of how it functions that can make accurate predictions. So right there I have an example that proves that I understand what you mean by "believing in something you don't have proof for". My reason for believing is that, frankly, I have no alternative that provides me a workable way of living.

However, even acepting this subjective reality as being reasonably faithful to the real world, I personally have not seen evidence that convinces me there is a god. Try to understand this. See the "I personally" qualifier? Yes? It means I'm not making sweeping generalisations about what everyone things. It means I'm talking about me. I have not seen evidence pointing to God's existence. You apparently have, and that's fine. But nothing you've said has made me change my mind, and you have to accept that or start providing new arguments or evidence. Otherwise we're just sitting here going in circles getting on each other's nerves.

Playboy wrote:

We do not know everything therefore we can logically say that that stuff exists for which we have no evidence for. The argument only becomes illogical when you try and define that which we have no evidence for. Then God becomes the mystery of our existence and an indefinable thing which we have no evidence for. Show me the flaws in my logic here please. If you have a problem thinking that life is not mystery then you seriously need to start thinking about life. It is the height of arrogance that not even the most genius of scientists would assume to say that life is not a mystery.

My problem is this : you freely accept that we don't know everything, as do I. I state that, given what we do know at the moment, there's no conclusive evidence for god. There may be at a later stage, but not now. So at the time, it does not make sense to believe in God.

Whereas you say "I'm going to define something we've got no evidence for. And since you don't know everything, you can't say for definite that I'm wrong", and think that this lends weight to your theory. But the actual situation is : I cannot prove conclusively that your theory is incorrect, but you can't offer me one shred of evidence that it exists. Except by using this conveniently undefined thing as an answer to any question you have about the universe around you, but that doesn't work - you haven't defined it, so it's not a proper answer that can be tested, therefore it's not a logical response to the question. I mean, I can make the exact same arguments in favour of the existence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

Put it this way : imagine you go back in time to, say, the 15th century. You try to explain to someone vaguely scientifically minded about subatomic particles. They ask you to prove it and you talk about energy levels and particle collisions. But they want to see the evidence. Without a particle accelerator, you can't perform experiments that might demonstrate the validity of your theory by showing your predictions to be correct. So as far as the 15th century person is concerned, there's no real reason to believe your theory. It doesn't make the theory any more or less right; it just means that the available evidence cannot substantiate the claims. And the scientific method says that you can't accept just any theory with no evidence to substantiate it. You have to question things, try and break the theory, see if you can find holes in it. Only when you can't break it should you accept it.

So coming back to your claims about God. You say "well, the evolution of life on this planet is a mystery and we don't understand it, therefore maybe God was behind it". And that's fine. God is technically a maybe theory for me as well.

But you've already said we don't know everything, so how do you know the explanation won't turn out to be something completely different. How do you know that, for example, it won't turn out that the universe itself is one enormous sentient being which we are parasitic or symbiotic parts of, and that we evolved as part of the evolution of this greater creature? How do you know for certain that there must be an external creature behind our evolution, if you accept that you don't know everything? How do you know for certain that it wasn't just random chance over millions of planets that led to us evolving? I mean, we only see the planet where we evolved succesfully. We don't know if homo sapiens has evolved on other planets, or what the ratio is between planets where intelligent life evolves and planets that remain barren.

So, in light of all that, you tell me that I'm arrogant for not concluding that God must be there? Hah. Nice one. I'm saying "so far it doesn't look like there's a god, and I'll refrain from passing judgement on whether evolution had a helping hand or not until we've got a better idea about the possibilities of life evolving on other planets".