nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lmaopml

Personally, I think the problem is that some claim to know empirical knowledge, what is 'testable' etc. in the lab, and see this as a testimony of their own self worth - it tells them what they are, and others are within a system they have defined.

It fails to see anything beyond that limited sphere even 'if' one supposes that there are things that cannot be tested in the lab but are 'true' nonetheless.

It's Scientism - no biggy - not hard to spot.

..and by the way not all atheists or agnostics subscribe to this.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to have an awful hard time telling the difference between the possibility that something might be and whether it actually is, or even if it is likely it is.

It's called wisdom

It is amazing how many things we individually or collectively think of as "is" and they turn out to be something not so "is".

It's called keeping your mind open, something you seem to lack.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

It's called wisdom

It is amazing how many things we individually or collectively think of as "is" and they turn out to be something not so "is".

It's called keeping your mind open, something you seem to lack.

Keeping an open mind is being open to things once they present themselves. It is not making stuff up or guessing and then saying that other cannot show what you made up isn't the case. It is not making stuff up or guessing and then saying it is possible that you are right, as if that means something as to whether you are. It is not making stuff up or guessing and then saying it all depends on your "worldview".

You are not simply open to the possibilities that these things might be true, you are claiming they are true, or at the least you believe them to be true, and when pressed to support this you just say that there is a lot we don't know (which is correct, including the stuff you are claiming, so why are you claiming it) and no one can show you are wrong (which is true but says nothing for whether you are correct or not). The point is not can someone show you that you are wrong, it is can you demonstrate that a possible reality is actually the reality.

You don't seem to understand that there are an infinite possibility of things that might be, but what is relevant is what is.

You seem to have an unending roll call of crazy things that you believe in, and every time you are pressed to support these things the best you can come up with is that we don't know they aren't true.

How can you not see the issue with that?

You must have taken some sort of critical thinking or analytical course if you are a working scientist as you claim? Did you just flunk this class, did you fall asleep during it? How can you not know how silly arguing this way is something like this is?

Imagine if science worked like that, scientists just guessing at stuff and then when someone challenges them they say "Prove me wrong". Er no, demonstrate that you are right. This is critical thinking 101, the stuff they teach to secondary school children.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Easy one The latter. A reasoned argument never convinced anyone of anything.

Have you heard of "science" :pac:

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Personally, I think the problem is that some claim to know empirical knowledge, what is 'testable' etc. in the lab, and see this as a testimony of their own self worth - it tells them what they are, and others are within a system they have defined.

It fails to see anything beyond that limited sphere even 'if' one supposes that there are things that cannot be tested in the lab but are 'true' nonetheless.

It's Scientism - no biggy - not hard to spot.

..and by the way not all atheists or agnostics subscribe to this.

Why is that a problem?

You don't think it is important to be able to support what you believe? Not just what you believe, but why you believe it?

Or do you subscribe to the notion that it is better to just believe in things that make you happen, irrespective of whether they are true or not?

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

So based on what you say theirs no love, no justice, no mercy, no hope? We cant measure or quantify any of them.

Why do people keep saying that? We can "measure and quantify" all of those things?

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Why is that a problem?

You don't think it is important to be able to support what you believe? Not just what you believe, but why you believe it?

Or do you subscribe to the notion that it is better to just believe in things that make you happen, irrespective of whether they are true or not?

I think you vastly underestimate science, I think you vastly underestimate enquiry, I think you vastly underestimate people, I think you vastly underestimate knowledge, and I think you are boxed in to a worldview that you try to impose on others, because you highly regard only one aspect of life, even if it makes you seem or feel clever - but you can't do that to me, and you won't impose your worldview on me either. It's very 'romantic' in very many ways, but it's totally restricted, and imo very cold.

That's the cold hard truth as I see it.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I think you vastly underestimate science, I think you vastly underestimate enquiry, I think you vastly underestimate people, I think you vastly underestimate knowledge, and I think you are boxed in to a worldview that you try to impose on others, because you highly regard only one aspect of life, even if it makes you seem or feel clever - but you can't do that to me, and you won't impose your worldview on me either. It's very 'romantic' in very many ways, but it's totally restricted, and imo very cold.

That's the cold hard truth as I see it.

Do you understand why science limits itself to empricial enquiry? It is not just because it likes restricting itself. It is because a lot of very smart philosophers thought about the problem of knowledge and realized that if you don't limit yourself to what can be measured and tested, you can't actually know anything.

I'm sure some theologists disagree, but they never seem to explain how one can have confidence in their theological beliefs without following such a methodology, and why if you can does science itself not follow said methodology. After all theologists are doing the same thing scientists are doing, making claims about the true nature of reality. Why then do the same requirements not apply?

The cold hard truth as you say, seems to be that some people like what they believe, and don't really want to think all that hard about whether they can rationally support or justify that belief.

Which is probably why there are still thousands of religions.

Perhaps you want to take a crack at justifying in an epistemology sense, why you believe what you believe and why you are confident what you believe is actually what is real and not fiction.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you understand why science limits itself to empricial enquiry? It is not just because it likes restricting itself. It is because a lot of very smart philosophers thought about the problem of knowledge and realized that if you don't limit yourself to what can be measured and tested, you can't actually know anything.

I'm sure some theologists disagree, but they never seem to explain how one can have confidence in their theological beliefs without following such a methodology, and why if you can does science itself not follow said methodology.

The cold hard truth as you say, seems to be that some people like what they believe, and don't really want to think all that hard about whether they can rationally support or justify that belief.

Which is probably why there are still thousands of religions.

Perhaps you want to take a crack at justifying in an epistemology sense, why you believe what you believe and why you are confident what you believe is actually what is real and not fiction.

I have no problem with the scientific method, make no mistake - my problem is in your 'worldview' that you derive from it, which is NOT what it was meant for....It's not a 'Creed' - It's not exclusive but 'inclusive', there are new discoveries every single day.

I have a problem with you laying an exclusive claim on it, and a 'method' to see life through, when it was never yours to begin with and doesn't belong to anybody at all no matter whom....not you or I.

Think just for one moment how the method works - it's based on correction, modification, or debunking throughout the centuries.

It's not yours. It's merely a tool that belongs to everybody.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I have no problem with the scientific method, make no mistake - my problem is in your 'worldview' that you derive from it, which is NOT what it was meant for....It's not a 'Creed' - It's not exclusive but 'inclusive', there are new discoveries every single day.

I have a problem with you laying an exclusive claim on it, and a 'method' to see life through, when it was never yours to begin with and doesn't belong to anybody at all no matter whom....not you or I.

Think just for one moment how the method works - it's based on correction, modification, or debunking throughout the centuries.

It's not yours. It's merely a tool that belongs to everybody.

Do you understand that the scientific method is based on a philosophical claim about what we can and cant know, and how we can be confident in what we can know?

Do you reject this philosophy? Is not, how do you square what this philosophy says and what you claim to believe is true?

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you understand that the scientific method is based on a philosophical claim about what we can and cant know, and how we can be confident in what we can know?

Do you reject this philosophy? Is not, how do you square what this philosophy says and what you claim to believe is true?

Not everybody who clearly has followed the scientific method thinks in merely binary philosophical terms Zombrex, and I'm not claiming that it's a terrible philosophy, but it's not all just on and off - that's not philosophy, that's a fence.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that there are an infinite possibility of things that might be, but what is relevant is what is.

You seem to have an unending roll call of crazy things that you believe in, and every time you are pressed to support these things the best you can come up with is that we don't know they aren't true.

You must have taken some sort of critical thinking or analytical course if you are a working scientist as you claim? Did you just flunk this class, did you fall asleep during it? How can you not know how silly arguing this way is something like this is?

That was a good rant, angry much?

Why is what is the relevant thing when what is changes all the time? Life is a neverending sequence of surprises, if you allow it to be. The only people who think we should ignore what might be and only focus on what is are people who get left behind with their heads stuck in the sand. If it wasn't for people who think in terms of might be, we would have no progress in anything, we would never have lit a fire and cooked a bit of meat over it, there would be no music, no art, no literature, no science actually. What a boring world you are proposing.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the scientific method from creative speculation or intuition. It was creative speculation that led to all major scientific breakthroughs. Trust me throughout my career I have followed the scientific method diligently, but that has nothing to do with how I see the world. At all. If you think we should only look through the lens of science to gain knowledge I honestly feel sorry for you.

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Theism is the actual lazy approach.
You see how utterly lazy Theism is, no search for reasons, no attempt to expand our knowledge. Instead any time anything new, anything different comes along "goddidit".

I am no theist but all you are demonstrating in that diatribe is your complete ignrorance of theistic thought spanning about 5,000 years. You can disagee with it (as I do), but to say there is no search for reason or expansion of knowledge in the works of Roger Bacon, Max Planck, Theodocius Dobzhansky, John Eccles and Francis Collins among hundreds more is the definition of an argument from ignorance. What is it that atheists cannot understand regarding science and theist/deist beliefs being separate subjects?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

That was a good rant, angry much?

Why is what is the relevant thing when what is changes all the time? Life is a neverending sequence of surprises, if you allow it to be. The only people who think we should ignore what might be and only focus on what is are people who get left behind with their heads stuck in the sand. If it wasn't for people who think in terms of might be, we would have no progress in anything, we would never have lit a fire and cooked a bit of meat over it, there would be no music, no art, no literature, no science actually. What a boring world you are proposing.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish the scientific method from creative speculation or intuition. It was creative speculation that led to all major scientific breakthroughs. Trust me throughout my career I have followed the scientific method diligently, but that has nothing to do with how I see the world. At all. If you think we should only look through the lens of science to gain knowledge I honestly feel sorry for you.

The first step in all science is a scientist having a hunch or guess about what they think might be going one.

But a true scientist never thinks these are anything more that a hunch or guess until the have formed tests to support them.

They certainly do not simply stop at this point and start proclaiming these things as worthy of belief. By there own, without anything to support the they are worthless.

That is a complete perversion of the scientific method. Damn right I'm angry. Between your nonsense notions and the Creations science is under attack from all sides on this forum.

No scientist after Leaving Cert standard would proclaim a hunch or guess without and evidence as supported or worth of belief because "there is a lot we don't know" :rolleyes:

I shudder to think that someone would read your posts and think that guessing and hunches is what science is all about, rather than simply the very very start of a long long process.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Not everybody who clearly has followed the scientific method thinks in merely binary philosophical terms Zombrex, and I'm not claiming that it's a terrible philosophy, but it's not all just on and off - that's not philosophy, that's a fence.

You ignored my question.

The philosophy of science says something about what we can know, and how we can have confidence in what we think we know.

This informs the scientific method, why it is as it is rather than some other method.

Do you reject this? And if you don't, as seem to claim, how do you square what the philosophy of science says and your own beliefs that, I'm assuming, are not supported in the manner that the philosophy of science requires?

Brian Shanahan

Zombrex wrote: »

Atheism is the rejection of theism. If you don't have a good reason to believe in any theist claims, or you have realized the weakness of theist claims, you are an atheist.

As can be well evidenced by the reason for Roman persecution of christians, on the grounds of atheism.

Early christians had realised the weakness of theist claims about the Roman pantheon, and therefore took the logical position of "there is no such pantheon". Pity they didn't also take the logical step of applying the same scepticism and critical thinking to their own beliefs.

Fanny Cradock

maguffin wrote: »

There are two sides to every story... and this is the ther side of 'Fine Tuning'..

To quote briefly from the text:
"Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments"

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html

Quite true! And this is why you should check out the responses to Stenger penned by physicist turned philosopher Robin Collins and non-Christian cosmologist Luke Barnes at his excellent blog Letters To Nature. You also might be interested in the book Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.

Zombrex wrote: »

The premiss of those question is wrong, so there is no point answering them. You are assuming atheism is attempting to present evidence for its "worldview", just like theism is. It isn't. It is not a question of competing world views. It is a question of whether claims can be supported or not. And theists are the only ones making these claims. All atheism is is pointing out that the claims are not supported by sound evidence or reasoning.

Certainly many atheists are interested in what is really going on once theism has been rejected. But that is not what atheism is about.

I was actually talking about this post

Brian Shanahan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are some really interesting arguments that can lead you to the belief in a God. For example, the argument from a fine-tuned universe. But it's another step to arrive at Christian God with his particular characteristics. If you want to get to this point I think it involves a cumulative case - looking at multiple stands of evidence and then deciding if these might or might not be true. This is what Jim Wallace does in his book Cold Case Christianity. Not read it myself but I've heard some good things about it.

The "fine-tuned universe" is most definitely not an argument for god. There are far more plausible answers available for a "fine tuned universe" which both better explain this phenomenon, and sastisfy the rule of William of Ockham (that of "least causes"). Here is a TED talk on one of those idea, the multiverse hypothesis.

And that is completely ignoring the evidence which is appearing suggesting that the tuning needed for life is a fine as previously supposed.

Fanny Cradock

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The "fine-tuned universe" is most definitely not an argument for god. There are far more plausible answers available for a "fine tuned universe" which both better explain this phenomenon, and sastisfy the rule of William of Ockham (that of "least causes"). Here is a TED talk on one of those idea, the multiverse hypothesis.

And that is completely ignoring the evidence which is appearing suggesting that the tuning needed for life is a fine as previously supposed.

Ironically, Stenger doesn't think that the multiverse is necessary to explain any supposed fine tuning. I take it you didn't read or listen to any of the links I gave because all of them address Stenger view and broadly the discuss the multiverse hypotheses.

Nevertheless, thanks for the Brian Greene link. I'll have a watch when I get a chance. The second link you posted briefly mentions disputes about fine tuning. However, it happens to quote Stenger of all people. The same man who Collins and Barns are responding to. For more on the multiverse and Stenger see page 57 of Barn's extended critique here.

For a more general overview you can click here to listen/ view a critique of the 9 or so competing multiverse hypotheses that the very well respected George Ellis gave a couple of years back. Brian Greene even gets a mention! An older but longer talk is available here. Ellis also wrote an article for Scientific American here. I'd also recommend to anyone interested in the debate The Mind of God by an other cosmologist and non-theist Paul Davies. A number of year back Davies was in discussion with the ever excellent John Lennox here and if my memory serves me well they discussed the multiverse.

It's not obvious to me that proposing an unlimited number of universes that are in principle unobservable is more parsimonious then God who is in principle knowable. That God is knowable is the claim made by Christians like myself. But this aside, not all theists (including Christians) absolutely reject the notion of a multiverse. For example, see Ellis above.

To reiterate, I don't think that people will easily or often go from fine-tuning (or any argument) to "there is a God!" and then to "Jesus is Lord!". It's a process. And if God is knowable then seeking him out is an integral part of this process. Theist/ atheist internet arguments - not so much.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Have you heard of "science" :pac:

So? It doesn't persuade anyone, a few people are convinced and produce something that everyone else just accepts because everyone dose, not because they investigated and were convinced by the evidence after doing some experiments themselves.
Sorry Zombrex, but you are just talking rubbish.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Why do people keep saying that? We can "measure and quantify" all of those things?

Interesting that you say that, I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing. We can measure chemical reactions or image neurons firing in a brain but to make the leap that what we are measuring is love or anger or justice is just pushing it. Or more like extending your claim onto territory it doesn't map.

philologos

Zombrex seems to be making this point that science is a rival to Christianity when it is nothing of the sort. It is when we start to consider that there are many scientists who believe and trust in Jesus that we start to see that science doesn't preclude belief in Christianity.

Brian Shanahan

tommy2bad wrote: »

See what I did their?
So based on what you say theirs no love, no justice, no mercy, no hope? We cant measure or quantify any of them. No lab or Hadron Collider will ever produce evidence of them.
Everybody makes claims on things without evidence or at least with what evidence they need to back up their claim. Judicious selection of evidence is one of humanities least endearing traits.

Not alone did you do nothing, you can't even spell there. The rest of your "argument" is about as useful as a paper bag in a hurricane.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's Scientism - no biggy - not hard to spot.

Typical spiritualist balderdash. Science is increasing our knowledge of the universe and giving us a bigger and better picture of reality. On the other hand all you have got is the useless and idiotic "goddidit".

tommy2bad

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Not alone did you do nothing, you can't even spell there. The rest of your "argument" is about as useful as a paper bag in a hurricane.

Typical spiritualist balderdash. Science is increasing our knowledge of the universe and giving us a bigger and better picture of reality. On the other hand all you have got is the useless and idiotic "goddidit".

God I hate spelling nazis! And your argument is ???

Yeah and 'goddidit' is about as usefull a retort as nanana!
Come on make an attempt at a resoned argument instead of cheap potshots.

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

God I hate spelling nazis! And your argument is ???

Yeah and 'goddidit' is about as usefull a retort as nanana!
Come on make an attempt at a resoned argument instead of cheap potshots.

Ok - can I jump in and ask you a question ? Why one religion or belief as opposed to any other ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Ok - can I jump in and ask you a question ? Why one religion or belief as opposed to any other ?

Well, I don't know from tommy2bad's position. For me how I became a Christian was that I read and questioned and scrutinised what Jesus said and did in Scripture, and I realised that actually it held up rather well. The Gospel presents a realistic portrayal of the fallen creation that we dwell in, and the Gospel presents a Saviour who came into the world to rescue us from sin and death once and for all.

The Biblical narrative makes complete sense on examination in a way that many other philosophies including atheism doesn't.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Interesting that you say that, I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing. We can measure chemical reactions or image neurons firing in a brain but to make the leap that what we are measuring is love or anger or justice is just pushing it. Or more like extending your claim onto territory it doesn't map.

Define those things you mentioned in a manner that doesn't reference human experience, which is measurable, or the brain, which is also measurable.

It is all very well to say these things are transcendent but that is romanticising the words that when you examine them properly, ie actually define the words, are rather simple.

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

Ok - can I jump in and ask you a question ? Why one religion or belief as opposed to any other ?

Would be interesting to ask a scientist the same question about a scientific theory (why Darwinism and not Lamarickism, why electromagnetic theory of light and not the luminous ether) and see if you get the same type of answers.

I would imagine with the scientists you wouldn't get a lot if "it makes sense to me" answers :rolleyes:

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Easy one The latter. A reasoned argument never convinced anyone of anything.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.

I'd be sacked from my job if I used that reasoning. At work myself and colleagues often have to work out the best and most efficient way of implementing logic to provide a solution to business users. As a result we often have to discuss as to the benefits of solution X versus solution Y.

If there were clear arguments as to why solution X was significantly better than solution Y, and out of irrationality I chose to implement Y to the detriment of performance to the business users that wouldn't go down too well.

Humans aren't solely rational creatures, I'd agree, but we are rational creatures to a degree.

Where I would agree with the atheists is that I believe that if you are going to believe something and if you are to stake your life on it, then you better have good reason for believing. Now, by the by, this of course also applies to many of the atheistic assumptions that they use to reject Christianity. Also, just because one expresses skepticism doesn't make it defacto rational. Many people are skeptical of things like vaccinations on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I believe that most atheistic objections to Christianity that have been posted on fora like this and elsewhere are also baseless.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Well, I don't know from tommy2bad's position. For me how I became a Christian was that I read and questioned and scrutinised what Jesus said and did in Scripture, and I realised that actually it held up rather well. The Gospel presents a realistic portrayal of the fallen creation that we dwell in, and the Gospel presents a Saviour who came into the world to rescue us from sin and death once and for all.

The Biblical narrative makes complete sense on examination in a way that many other philosophies including atheism doesn't.

So it is a matter of opinion then ?