Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

Morbert: I think Russell's understanding was lacking as a lot of philosophy can be.

Zombrex: Not at all, because there's still the fundamental question of how all this came to be. It seems pretty clear on a number of grounds that there must have been an ultimate cause to this universe. I've presented a number of arguments for God's existence, which have been flat out ignored time and time again in what seems a mere matter of personal preference. Ultimately, I believe it's down to you if you want to earnestly consider God's word, and ultimately I believe that He is the only one who will make that change. No argument how good, how lofty, how intellectual will break down the barrier that you have created. I'm convinced of that.

It is pseudo-psychology, it's atheists trying to explain away what is a genuine philosophical issue. The new-atheists simply fuse opinion with fact without consideration. Sam Harris has done it and Richard Dawkins certainly has done it.

That is not really the case though philologos, correct me if I am wrong ( and I may well be) but that last time this discussion came up was as an adjunct to Dawkins or Harris refusing to debate that chap - can't recall his name . Now ruthlessly paraphrasing the arguments we came to the conclusion that the simplest explanation the fit all the fact was the one most likely to be true . I said the non existance of god fit the bill nicely- you said no and inserted a prime mover into the chain - and when queried you shut down the discussion.

So to have a debate as to the existence of god etc is against the rules is it not ?

But is it just a matter of proving God exists?
What if we prove that God dosn't exist? How dose that help? What part of me will be better off without God? Without God mind not without religion, priests, holy texts and all the ritual and regulation thats attached to believing in God. Remove God and all the bullsh1t will remain, it'll just morph into some other set of rituals and regulations. Well still kill each other, rob, lie and cheat just because theirs no God wont make any difference.
We are people and people divide into tribes and in groups and out groups, seek to dominate, love and hate and justify themselves to themselves.
I believe in God because I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty and justice find no echo in an empty cold universe. Its a defiant assertion in the face of adversity not a dogma to preach.

Tim Robbins

tommy2bad wrote: »

I believe in God because I refuse to accept that love, truth, beauty and justice find no echo in an empty cold universe. Its a defiant assertion in the face of adversity not a dogma to preach.

That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

Respect.

lmaopml

I believe that there is 'evidence' of God, sometimes it's more aesthetic, like Tommy mentions there, and sometimes it's to do with justice and nature; sometimes it's to do with both those things and 'Christ' is the ultimate reason for Christians - but it's not the sort you put under a microscope, or indeed a telescope - it's something you feel or don't feel, sense or don't sense, love or don't love, seek or don't seek, and ultimately is perhaps the one decision that can change a course of your life.

Christians believe that God exists beyond nature - so natural studies are not in conflict and not a proof either. No problem there.

Anybody familiar with Ecclesiastes will sense the deep meaning beneath the words for that time and place, pretty much that time and knowledge are of nothing to God, his ways are not ours - but can't ( well I can't help) be blown away by the tremendous insight, especially for over 2,300 years ago that a writer could understand or be 'led' to write such knowledge about time and place that we don't fully understand today. Fabulous!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

Respect.

Dont match.

Why is it lazy? More of concern is why is it a lousy reason?
How is it irrational or at least anymore irrational than believing in love or that good should win. Rationality would say that might makes right but we don't subscribe to that or maybe you do?

lmaopml wrote: »

I believe that there is 'evidence' of God, sometimes it's more aesthetic, like Tommy mentions there, and sometimes it's to do with justice and nature; sometimes it's to do with both those things and 'Christ' is the ultimate reason for Christians - but it's not the sort you put under a microscope, or indeed a telescope - it's something you feel or don't feel, sense or don't sense, love or don't love, seek or don't seek, and ultimately is perhaps the one decision that can change a course of your life.

Christians believe that God exists beyond nature - so natural studies are not in conflict and not a proof either. No problem there.

Anybody familiar with Ecclesiastes will sense the deep meaning beneath the words for that time and place, pretty much that time and knowledge are of nothing to God, his ways are not ours - but can't ( well I can't help) be blown away by the tremendous insight, especially for over 2,300 years ago that a writer could understand or be 'led' to write such knowledge about time and place that we don't fully understand today. Fabulous!

That is all great for you Imaopml and you have found your God, but really when you start using words like 'aesthetics'' ''justice'' ''nature'' you are accepting that scientifically it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
If you could you would,and we would all agree.

You are describing exactly what I feel when reading Homer Dante Joyce or Proust.

But just say for a minute you had proved it -then I would ask which God and why that God ? The Christian God- The God of Islam- Yoruba deities ?

Some would say in reply that in fact there is only the one God and lets say this were so , then we can dispense will all the religious paraphenalia , and the pomp and ceremony, and the diktats and prohibitions and move toward world spirit vagueness type of stuff.

I always find it surprising that believers are contantly looking for ''proof''- an actual man called Jesus existed, that Nazereth existed, that the Turin Shroud is genuine..whatever, who cares ? If you have faith it is surely irrelevant, or is it like Thomas with that little seed of doubt always nagging away in there.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

That is all great for you Imaopml and you have found your God, but really when you start using words like 'aesthetics'' ''justice'' ''nature'' you are accepting that scientifically it is impossible to prove the existence of God.
If you could you would,and we would all agree.

Um, yes, that's exactly what I am saying...you won't put God under a microscope or telescope should probably have given you a clue no

- that's my own opinion, and I don't mind if you think it's 'great' for me or even if you think it's not - feel free.

You are describing exactly what I feel when reading Homer Dante Joyce or Proust.

Yes, exactly, I would say that they are kind of one and the same thing, but not exactly, that may be your aesthetic side Marien that is probably rather pointless in the big scheme of things to other folk who don't share it, but awakens your sense nonetheless how you see fit and gives you 'feelings'. Great choices by the way....one of the guys who translated Homer's Illiad is a favourite writer of mine, Alexander Pope, another fabulous guy.

lmaopml wrote: »

Um, yes, that's exactly what I am saying...you won't put God under a microscope or telescope should probably have given you a clue no - that's my own opinion, and I don't mind if you think it's 'great' for me or even if you think it's not - feel free.

Yes, exactly, I would say that they are kind of one and the same thing, but not exactly, that may be your aesthetic side Marien that is probably rather pointless in the big scheme of things to other folk who don't share it, but awakens your sense nonetheless how you see fit and gives you 'feelings'. Great choices by the way....one of the guys who translated Homer's Illiad is a favourite writer of mine, Alexander Pope, another fabulous guy.

Indeed Imaopml

''A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring''

Zombrex wrote: »

psychological reasons for why humans would both invent something like a god and why such an idea would propagate through human culture, ...
To me these present a much more plausible explanation for the existence of human religion at a far greater level of detail than any religion explanation does.

Really? Okay then care to give us a list list these psychological reasons and theories and how they are plausible? I hope you dont include memetics.

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed Imaopml

''A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring''

I think I earlier stated "a little learning is a dangerous thing"

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

Dont match.

Why is it lazy? More of concern is why is it a lousy reason?
How is it irrational or at least anymore irrational than believing in love or that good should win. Rationality would say that might makes right but we don't subscribe to that or maybe you do?

But might is right in the end. Whether you subscribe to it or not. That is why we have bomb-making facilities and weapons research institutes etc.

Ultimately, might does rule.

Further evidence for the absence of a 'just' God of creation.

Ice ages are more evidence of a lack of care from a deity who loves His human creation.

In fact, I think it is pretty safe to say that the Universe appears to be evolving just as one would expect if a Universe was left uncreated, undisturbed and to its own devices.

If there is a God-governed Universe, it certainly ain't this one.

I think the question should be, 'What kind of Universe would we live in if it was governed by a benevolent God?'.

I think it would be a nicer place than the places described in the Bible.

[Deleted User]

ISAW wrote: »

Really? Okay then care to give us a list list these psychological reasons and theories and how they are plausible? I hope you dont include memetics.

ISAW, how do you explain the myriad of religions and concepts of God/s that do not agree with yours that are out there?
Where do they come from if their Gods aren't real?
Why do people believe in them when they are not true and in some cases transparently false?
Why do people believe in other things that are not true and unrelated to ideas of Gods, such as fairies and ghosts?
Why do people believe that 9/11 was the result of a global conspiracy of lizardmen?

Surely you understand that there are reasons for all of these that aren't supernatural?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

One point I will quickly make about evidence, since the topic seems to be moving towards the evidence for God (which tends to be things like lovely sunsets).

I've never once used that argument. By evidence, I mean indicatory evidence that would suggest God's existence in the absence of absolute proof. Evidence similar to finding an item of clothing beside a murdered body. It's reasonable to suggest that the item of clothing may belong to the murderer if it wasn't owned by the person who was killed. Indeed, we might look and see that there are fingerprints on the knife that was left in their body. Again, more indicatory evidence.

The more and more of this indicatory evidence we have, the more and more we can be sure that it was true. There is no reason to have a separate standard in respect to God and Christianity. There are a lot of reasons that one can have for believing in Jesus in the 21st century. I've skimmed over a few of them briefly in this post on this thread. I'll expand on them if there is interest and as I get time.

Zombrex wrote: »

By definition a all powerful supernatural being can explain anything. That doesn't mean the existence of anything is evidence for that all powerful supernatural being.

Nonsense. If we find that what we've received about God, correlates with reality, then that is a valid piece of indicatory evidence. If the world operates in a certain way that the Bible addresses. That gives me confidence in it as a reliable document. The world operates in many ways that the Bible addresses, and the world contains evidence that demonstrates that many Biblical events are true, and that what the Bible says about historical figures is true. There's archaeology to demonstrate that the Bible is true.

Being unwilling to actually give that the consideration it deserves, is just fobbing it off. It doesn't mean that God isn't evidenced.

Zombrex wrote: »

This is a point that is often spectacularly missed by some theists who think they merely have to point to the existence of the universe to demonstrate that their god exists because they only consider their god as capable of producing something. Something exists, must have been our god sure what else could it have been. Well anything really, what evidence is it that it was your god specifically and not something else.

So to any theists brave enough to put forward evidence for their god can you try, to save time, to think a bit over whether it is actually evidence for your god or is it simply evidence for something, anything, that produced the universe.

That's the reason why people post more than this.

However, that's irrelevant entirely to your position. Even if it is another God, then atheism is still wrong. This is why I ask for positive arguments for atheism rather than simply lobbing pot-shots at Christianity or whining that there is no evidence. Even if there were no evidence (which isn't true), we're still a long way of demonstrating that any God does not exist.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That reason just sounds like you believe because you feel like it - which is your choice - but a pretty lazy and lousy reason to me.

I believe in things when there is a good rational reason and I'd prefer the truth warts or all rather than some delusional fantasy just to make me feel better.

If there's a God - grand, but show me the evidence - any of you (thor, zeus, Christian God, whoever...) show me a good reason you exist outside people's imagination.

Respect.

What is the source of your respect?
How do you scientifically measure it?
How can you prove love, respect, right and wrong, etc. ?

Morbert wrote: »

Ok.

There is no evidence for God.

what constitutes "evidence"?

Is there evidence for parallel universes?

Penn

Could I get a response to this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77350370&postcount=2534

I don't mean to badger you or anything, and if you don't wish to respond, that's fine. I'm just genuinely curious to know how Christianity has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science, and how they're connected in that way. Considering of course, that the Greeks worshipped many gods which in no way fit in with christian theology.

Zombrex

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

I'm a lover of the sciences, and I don't look to religion to explain the fine details of the physical, thats where science comes in, and true religion does not clash with science.

That has nothing to do with the explanation I just presented to you?

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Pop up another one there.

Yeah maybe not, I suspect that would be a waste of time ...

ISAW wrote: »

I think I earlier stated "a little learning is a dangerous thing"

Good for you ISAW

''And still they gaz'd and and still the wonder grew
that one small head could carry all he knew''

Maybe science is far too primitive at the moment to prove the existence of God.

himnextdoor ;
'What kind of Universe would we live in if it was governed by a benevolent God?'.

I never said it was a benevolent or interventionist God. Anyway define benevolent, caring for the whole universe or just individuals. A god for humans?
I'm more of a co relationalist. God and the world rather than God or the world.

Penn wrote: »

Could I get a response to this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77350370&postcount=2534

I don't mean to badger you or anything, and if you don't wish to respond, that's fine. I'm just genuinely curious to know how Christianity has the same Greek roots as mathematics and science, and how they're connected in that way. Considering of course, that the Greeks worshipped many gods which in no way fit in with christian theology.

It would take a book to fully explore the relationship between Jewish and Greek thinking that goes into the theology of Christianity.
Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, came to Rome and picked up Greek ideas along the way. Dualism from Plato is one example. The ideas of logos and theos. Science as we know it came out of this way of thinking not in opposition to it. The Galileo thing and all the rest are politics not science or religion. Remember that the church used Copernicus calculations to set the date for easter, not the act of an institute that rejected his theories.

Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.

marienbad wrote: »

Good for you ISAW

''And still they gaz'd and and still the wonder grew
that one small head could carry all he knew''

Touche -goldsmith?

Penn wrote: »

How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_philosophy_and_Christianity

, Stoicism and particularly Platonism were readily incorporated into Christian ethics and theology.

Philo's blend of Judaism, Platonism, and Stoicism strongly influenced Christian Alexandrian writers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria, as well as, in the Latin world, Ambrose of Milan.

One early Christian writer of the 2nd and early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria, demonstrated Greek thought in writing: "Philosophy has been given to the Greeks as their own kind of Covenant, their foundation for the philosophy of Christ ... the philosophy of the Greeks ... contains the basic elements of that genuine and perfect knowledge which is higher than human ... even upon those spiritual objects." (Miscellanies 6. 8)

The Church historian Eusebius suggested, essentially, that Greek philosophy had been supplied providentially as a preparation for the Gospel.

Augustine of Hippo, who ultimately systematized Christian philosophy, wrote in the 4th and early 5th century: "But when I read those books of the Platonists I was taught by them to seek incorporeal truth, so I saw your 'invisible things, understood by the things that are made' (Confessions 7. 20).

...
Hellenic Christians and their medieval successors then applied this Form-based philosophy to the Christian God.

since God was perfect, any change would make him less than perfect, so they asserted that God was unchanging, or immutable.

As you are probably aware this is the established view of science coming up to Galileo and Newton i.e. that a different set of rules operated in the heavens compared to the earth.

the Geocentric cosmology was also Greek in origin -Ptolemy.
********************

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

list of Christian philosophers, theologians, and writers with Platonist/Neoplatonist interests or influences. Their main works, and especially those relevant to the topic of Christian Platonism, are also shown.

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.gif

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_platonism.gif

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/renaissance_esotericists.gif

Copyright © 2008-2009 -John Uebersax PhD

Northclare wrote: »

Muslims also had mathematical geniuses as well as Christianity.

and as others have stated people who were not atheists and not Christians also killed people.
But it has nothing to do witht he point that all atheistic countries did and almost no christian
countriees did.

Science is Greek in Origin. Whether Indians Arabs or others later developed it.

Some musicians meditate or pray before they write music and they believe without their beliefs they wouldn't have the ability to come up with their compositions.

Easily tested. get them to compose without prayer first

the broader issue of art is different; science isnt art although it can be creative and artistic.

Mathematics itself is an extension of logic. What people mean by "mathematical beauty" is another thing usually to do with simplicity.

but i go along with chalmers view in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science

Where he views it as esentially greek in origin.

Another good book to read is " Night Journey to Buddh Gaia" by John Moriarty.

I read it once and its very interesting but ill start reading it again soon.

I'm sure if you Google it, you will read reviews on the book.