Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Festus wrote: »

As stated, I am more than happy to accept your admission that God is an answer. For me God is the answer

I do not see it as an "admission" rather as something I have been saying all along. My position as I said is that we are in a universe and we exist and we do not know why.

Several hypothesis have been proposed for this. Including a god. I recognize the existence of god as being a valid but entirely unsubstantiated proposition, like many others.

Festus wrote: »

At no stage did I ever say that I could prove God exists.

And I would be quick to point out that at no stage do I ask people for proof of it but "Any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning which lends any credibility to the claim at all".

Festus wrote: »

I said that the evidence is everywhere, and I can see it, but I cannot tell you how to see it.

And I am sure this works for you. The issue for me, which is probably worth making explicit rather than assumed, is that I have no methodology to discern between you saying that.... and anyone else saying it about Alien Abductions, Political Conspiracies, Homeopathy, fairies, or just about anything else they simply make up on the spot.

So my choice ends up being:

1) Seek substantiation for claims or some methodology for discerning between them which is what I do or
2) Simply accept them ALL which I simply can not do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not see it as an "admission" rather as something I have been saying all along. My position as I said is that we are in a universe and we exist and we do not know why.

Several hypothesis have been proposed for this. Including a god. I recognize the existence of god as being a valid but entirely unsubstantiated proposition, like many others.

And I would be quick to point out that at no stage do I ask people for proof of it but "Any arguments, evidence, data OR reasoning which lends any credibility to the claim at all".

And I am sure this works for you. The issue for me, which is probably worth making explicit rather than assumed, is that I have no methodology to discern between you saying that.... and anyone else saying it about Alien Abductions, Political Conspiracies, Homeopathy, fairies, or just about anything else they simply make up on the spot.

So my choice ends up being:

1) Seek substantiation for claims or some methodology for discerning between them which is what I do or
2) Simply accept them ALL which I simply can not do.

I presented reasoning but you had issues with causality. You tried to use argumentum ad futuris by suggesting scientists are working on it in CERN and frequently mentioned "god of the gaps" when it was clear that I was not saying "I don't know therefore God" but rather "I know A and I know B therefore the reasonable conclusion is C". Perhaps that was my fault for not putting all my cards face up and considering this to be something of a poker game. Forgive me but that doesn't work in poker and I don't believe it works here.

You second choice is idiotic and nonsensical and I don't know why you would even suggest it. It is not reasonable to suggest it even for a fool.

Your first choice will never work because you are asking other people to do the work. People may present you with reasonable arguments but if all you are going to do is try to find any fallacy rather than seek the substance of what is being said you will never see the spark that leads to the truth. I accept it is what you do but you give the impression that your mind is already closed to God. Perhaps you are happy that for the two most important questions "Where do we come from?" and "Why are we here?" or as you put it, if I may paraphrase so as not to be accused of putting words into your mouth and apologies in advance if it is wildly inaccurate , "Why does the universe exist?" and "Why do we exist" your answer is "I don't know".

However you left out a third option. To seek the truth. Not a theory or a hypothesis that fits or is unfalsifiable but actual unswerving inerrant truth.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Alas these conversations all too often descend into people suggesting someone does not have an "open mind" when in fact there is nothing on offer to be "open minded" about!!

Your reference to an 'open mind' reminds me of a joke I heard about some people being so 'open minded' ... that their brains had fallen out!!!:):eek:

Festus wrote: »

perhaps you don't. Try using your imagination.

A great number of people engage their imaginations to great effect when thinking about religion. Angels floating around in Heaven, Adam and Eve and many utterly fantastic stories in the Old Testament.
Perhaps the problem with many non believers is that they are not able to call on this particular thought process. I have a very active imagination but I just can't imagine a place where God and the Angels exist. I would really be interested to hear what such a place may look like.
Can you tell me what you envisage Heaven to be, or indeed, where it is?

Festus wrote: »

Did the universe have a beginning?

There are many eminent scientists working on that answer. The truth is we do't know for sure. I would lean towards saying no.

Festus wrote: »

What is wrong with saying God created the Universe?

Nothing at all, in my opinion. There are millions of good people who are convinced that he did, or at least that some superior being did.

Safehands wrote: »

A great number of people engage their imaginations to great effect when thinking about religion. Angels floating around in Heaven, Adam and Eve and many utterly fantastic stories in the Old Testament.
Perhaps the problem with many non believers is that they are not able to call on this particular thought process. I have a very active imagination but I just can't imagine a place where God and the Angels exist. I would really be interested to hear what such a place may look like.

Can you tell me what you envisage Heaven to be, or indeed, where it is?

It is beyond our imagination. As imaginative and as creative as the human mind is, it is nonetheless limited. Location is probably outside of this universe as the universe is finite and Heaven is eternal. I say probably because God may have other plans when this world and this universe ends.

Safehands wrote: »

There are many eminent scientists working on that answer. The truth is we do't know for sure. I would lean towards saying no.

The Big Bang is a pretty popular creation event among most scientists. What alternatives are you aware of?

Safehands wrote: »

Nothing at all, in my opinion. There are millions of good people who are convinced that he did, or at least that some superior being did.

Sweet.

Festus wrote: »

I presented reasoning but you had issues with causality.

I have no issues with causality. Causality has issues with no time. No time -> No causality. Therefore the "first cause" argument hinges on quite a large assumption. For it to hold you have to assume time was an attribute of the event, when we currently have no reason to think so.

As I said three times now, I am very much open to seeing a model of causality built without using time as an attribute.

Festus wrote: »

You tried to use argumentum ad futuris

I used no such argument anywhere and I am unsure why you keep claiming I did.

Festus wrote: »

You second choice is idiotic and nonsensical

My point exactly!

Festus wrote: »

Your first choice will never work because you are asking other people to do the work.

Exactly. If someone makes a claim it is up to THEM to support that claim. Not me. You do not see science papers with the writer making a claim and then simply writing "Now go off and prove this for yourself". You do not see prosecution lawyers walking in and saying "I believe the accused is guilty, now go and find out why yourself".

No. The person _making the case_ presents the evidence.

Festus wrote: »

People may present you with reasonable arguments but if all you are going to do is try to find any fallacy rather than seek the substance of what is being said you will never see the spark that leads to the truth.

That is quite false. In fact the entire scientific method, for example, hinges on what you just said being false. In science, for example, the way we get to truth is by trying to falsify anything put before us. We seek to test it to see if it is false, has flaws, of fails in some way.

And if we fail to falsify the support for a claim then that claims carries forward as substantiated. But in order to falsify substantiation for a claim, some substantiation first has to be offered for it.

So yes we very much do get towards the truth by attempting to find flaws and failures in what is asserted to us. To paraphrase Marx, we strip the flowers from the chain in order to cull the living flower.

Festus wrote: »

your answer is "I don't know".

That is accurate. But I would build on it. My actual answer is "I do not know, but lets try and find out shall we???". And that is, in effect, the answer of every scientist who ever picked up a pen, abacus, test tube or any other form of instrument of measurement. And that is a wonderful enterprise of which we as a species ought to be proud. The humility of acknowledging and embracing our ignorance, coupled with the curiosity, drive and solidarity to erode it together as a species. When I see places like CERN I am moved to near tears and the sheer wonder of human solidarity, cooperation and curiosity it represents.

When I write a paragraph and I see it pulled apart into sentences and dissected I feel ... well not very happy. You seem to have a problem with connectedness and cohesiveness and cannot see a whole. If this were a public debate your actions are akin to constant interruptions. It makes it difficult for me to respond as much of what I said has been taken out of context.

However I will attempt

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not see prosecution lawyers walking in and saying "I believe the accused is guilty, now go and find out why yourself".

Of course not. But who is doing the accusing? in this case Christians are presenting from a position of Truth and innocent. Innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does.

Christians have been accused of lying about God, about Christ, about the Biblical record, and lying about God's existence.

Our plea is innocent.

prove us guilty.

Festus wrote: »

It is beyond our imagination. As imaginative and as creative as the human mind is, it is nonetheless limited. Location is probably outside of this universe as the universe is finite and Heaven is eternal. I say probably because God may have other plans when this world and this universe ends.

I tend to go along with the multi-dimensional theories. I think that there are probably many dimensions which exist simultaneously with the one which we occupy. I don't think we will ever have the capability to investigate this to any great extent. Maybe some part of our mind, or our essence, enters another dimension after we die. Maybe "Heaven" exists on this level. I don't know. If that does happen, then I think it is probable that many other dimensions exist on a higher level again. It would be great to think that good deeds in this life are somehow rewarded after we die. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until we die. In the meantime we should just do the best we can for ourselves and others.
What annoys me intensely is hearing religious groups telling us to live our lives their way, or face an eternity of misery. If we live good lives, without praying to some organisation's deity, we should be left alone to get on with our short stay on this Earth.

Festus wrote: »

Big Bang is a pretty popular creation event among most scientists. What alternatives are you aware of?

The big bang, as we understand it, wasn't really a "creation" event. The Universe and our laws of physics came into existence after it, but I think scientists suggest that there was some form of singularity prior to the big bang. That is what is so interesting and perplexing about the whole event.

Your issue with how quoting on forums like this works is not my issue. I will not comment on it as it is off topc. My posting style is one shared by many people here, and I will not be changing it. Suffice to say I have none of the problems you listed for me. I merely quote enough of a part of a persons post so that they know to what part my response is directed. I do not quote any more than required to achieve this.

Festus wrote: »

If this were a public debate your actions are akin to constant interruptions.

Not really because the format between on and off line is entirely different. I do public and personal live debates to. With and without audiences. I am more than happy to do so with you any time we are in the same geographic area. You will find my decorum there will be suitable to that platform and format, just like mine here is too.

Festus wrote: »

Of course not. But who is doing the accusing?

No one. Nor did I suggest that. It was an analogy. The point being that we have SEVERAL contexts in our world where people make claims, and it is the people making those claims that are expected to support them.

This happens in our courts. In our science. And so forth. So why you feel the same should not be true here is what is confusing me. In the analogous contexts I mentioned, you simply do not see people making claims and then telling everyone that they need to go prove it for themselves.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

Of course not. But who is doing the accusing? in this case Christians are presenting from a position of Truth and innocent. Innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does.

Christians have been accused of lying about God, about Christ, about the Biblical record, and lying about God's existence.

Our plea is innocent.

prove us guilty.

Just to correct you on something, for someone to be accused of lying, that means they have to be conscious of and aware that whatever it is they are saying is a lie.
I'm not aware of anyone here who's been debating with you who has said anything along the lines of "You, Festus, are consciously aware that your god does not exist and believe it, yet you still posit it as the truth".
No...far from it. We take it as a given that you believe your god exists and have all this time been critiquing it and showing the many logical holes in it.
The only times I've seen you lying are when you straw-man arguments you think other people have said. (Those would indeed be times where you'd be aware of what other people have said and not said, yet you make things up regardless and posit that as what they've said, aware all along that they didn't in fact say it)

Do you want to continue straw-manning? I shall go back to my non-interaction with you.

P.S. I'd love to know just how the hell you liken forum posts to interruptions during live debates. The two are completely different. In the forum, one person types up their piece, posts it, then the next person reads it, quotes whatever lines they want and gives their thoughts on the matter. At no point is anyone interrupted i.e. prevented from saying their piece.

Safehands wrote: »

I tend to go along with the multi-dimensional theories. I think that there are probably many dimensions which exist simultaneously with the one which we occupy. I don't think we will ever have the capability to investigate this to any great extent. Maybe some part of our mind, or our essence, enters another dimension after we die. Maybe "Heaven" exists on this level. I don't know. If that does happen, then I think it is probable that many other dimensions exist on a higher level again. It would be great to think that good deeds in this life are somehow rewarded after we die. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until we die. In the meantime we should just do the best we can for ourselves and others.
What annoys me intensely is hearing religious groups telling us to live our lives their way, or face an eternity of misery. If we live good lives, without praying to some organisation's deity, we should be left alone to get on with our short stay on this Earth.

God does not belong to an organization, if anything the organization belongs to God. A simpler view - God created this world so His rules apply
How do you know if you are living a good life if all you have is relative morality and you do not follow Gods rules?
It would be wise to find out the rules of living a good life and if you disagree with those rules explore the the reasoning from Gods perspective.
I once disagreed with my organizations rules and later went through this exercise. I now agree that the rules are for benefit of humankind and should be followed.

Safehands wrote: »

The big bang, as we understand it, wasn't really a "creation" event. The Universe and our laws of physics came into existence after it, but I think scientists suggest that there was some form of singularity prior to the big bang. That is what is so interesting and perplexing about the whole event.

Not after it, but at that instant. There is no pause during or after the start of the Big Bang event where the universe and the laws of nature suddenly popped in. The material and the laws all came into existence at the same moment.
Many scientists do consider it a creation event. The event that created the universe. Some go no further back from that, which is a pity.
One of the things that is interesting for me is that by deductive reasoning it had to have a cause.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No one. Nor did I suggest that. It was an analogy. The point being that we have SEVERAL contexts in our world where people make claims, and it is the people making those claims that are expected to support them.

.

you like substantiation - deal with the substance:

Festus wrote:

in this case Christians are presenting from a position of Truth and are innocent. Innocence does not have to be proven, guilt does.

Christians have been accused of lying about God, about Christ, about the Biblical record, and lying about God's existence.

Our plea is innocent.

prove us guilty.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

you like substantiation - deal with the substance:

Again, please quote anyone here who has accused you, Festus, of knowing and believing that there is no god, yet of willingly positing it as the truth anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The point being that we have SEVERAL contexts in our world where people make claims, and it is the people making those claims that are expected to support them.

and the claim that God does not exist or His existence is improbably, or that there is insufficient evidence to support those who do believe? Should they who are making those claims not also be expected to support them?

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

and the claim that God does not exist or His existence is improbably, or that there is insufficient evidence to support those who do believe? Should they who are making those claims not also be expected to support them?

What about those of us who are simply saying to you "Your claim, your argument is unsubstantiated"? What about those people who are on the fence, read your claims, and don't believe them?

In fact, here's a free tip. Pretend you've met a person who has literally never heard of Jesus, God, christianity, anything like that (I know, pretty hard to imagine in today's world). Pretend you're trying to convince that person. How would you go about it? Would you arrogantly say "Christianity is coming from the position of Truth (with a capital T) and Innocence, and if you don't believe me, you have to prove me wrong!" and get indignant when/if that person doesn't believe you?

Festus wrote: »

How do you know if you are living a good life if all you have is relative morality and you do not follow Gods rules?
It would be wise to find out the rules of living a good life and if you disagree with those rules explore the the reasoning from Gods perspective.

Society gives us rules to live by. Education and an ability to reason also teach us how to live a good life.
You second point is interesting though. As soon as you try to delve into "God's perspective" you enter a quagmire of opinion and man made interpretations of God's desires for us. Then you are back to the misery scenario, if you break seemingly innocuous, silly rules. (EG: missing Mass on Sunday). Therefore I believe we are better off leading a "good life" as laid down by common sense, reason and society. I genuinely believe that the religious types should get on with their lives, and those who want to stay away from their idea of Godly beliefs, should be left alone.

Festus wrote: »

Not after it, but at that instant. There is no pause during or after the start of the Big Bang event where the universe and the laws of nature suddenly popped in.

We do not know that. We know very little about the event, or prior to the event. We can speculate, but that's all it is, speculation.

Safehands wrote: »

Society gives us rules to live by. Education and an ability to reason also teach us how to live a good life.
You second point is interesting though. As soon as you try to delve into "God's perspective" you enter a quagmire of opinion and man made interpretations of God's desires for us. Then you are back to the misery scenario, if you break seemingly innocuous, silly rules. (EG: missing Mass on Sunday). Therefore I believe we are better off leading a "good life" as laid down by common sense, reason and society. I genuinely believe that the religious types should get on with their lives, and those who want to stay away from their idea of Godly beliefs, should be left alone.

You are entering territory that may be better discussed in a different thread.
The rules of Society come from somewhere, where do the come from? What is their ultimate source? How do you know if a rule is a good rule?
The innocuous silly rule you presented comes from The Commandments.
As mentioned previously if you believe in God you follow his rules. If you want an analogy the Bible provides a very good one regarding the "silly rule" of not eating a particular fruit. Your mention of Mass suggests you are a baptized Christian and possibly a Catholic. That or you know my position and you are using language I understand. However I suspect you are talking or claiming agnosticism.
I would caution that if you are a baptized Catholic you should satisfy yourself as to the consequences of your actions.

Safehands wrote: »

We do not know that. We know very little about the event, or prior to the event. We can speculate, but that's all it is, speculation.

Regardless current scientific opinion is that it is the best explanation for the origin of the universe and it is impossible to prove it happened by accident for no good reason.

Festus wrote: »

you like substantiation - deal with the substance:

I would if I were to be offered any. But rather than offer me any evidence for the existence of god, you now appear to be suggesting I should support some case I never made, that you are a liar? The closest I have come to accusing you of any dishonesty was when I, quite rightly, had to remove your words from my mouth on a number of occasions.

Festus wrote: »

and the claim that God does not exist

Is not one I have once made. So I will not be supporting it. My one and only claim to date has been that I have seen no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to even begin to suggest there is one. I myself am merely a person who attempts to divest myself of notions that are entirely unsubstantiated.

Festus wrote: »

The rules of Society come from somewhere, where do the come from? What is their ultimate source? How do you know if a rule is a good rule?

I would suggest a multitude of sources for this. Reason being one. Experience being another. Clearly if you identify what your goals are.... some rules are going to support attaining that goal more than others.

But of course there is no reason to think there is one set of "good" rules and all else is bad. An analogy can be made towards healthy eating for example. There is no one set of foods that constitute a healthy diet. There are in fact several varying combinations that can help attain a goal such as, for example, elongating your life and ensuring you feel alert and full of energy each day. And there are several combinations that will achieve the opposite.

The "rules of society" come essentially from this too. We by majority all wish to successfully, peacefully and comfortably life in this human relationship we call "society" and the "rules" we do this by are the ones we believe are most conducive to that end. This is the basis for our morality, ethics and laws.

Festus wrote: »

I would caution that if you are a baptized Catholic you should satisfy yourself as to the consequences of your actions.

I rest my case, Mr Festus!

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But rather than offer me any evidence for the existence of god, you now appear to be suggesting I should support some case I never made, that you are a liar? .

Why do you want evidence for the existence of God?

Safehands wrote: »

I rest my case, Mr Festus!

What case?

Festus wrote: »

Why do you want evidence for the existence of God?

Well mostly it is the topic of the thread.

But why would I not? If there is one, you would imagine it would be information I would benefit from having. Is there any greater or more interesting question we as a species have before us, than the explanation for our existence here? I explore all hypotheses I can for this. Including god.

Question is: Why are you making this about me, and not the thread topic?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I explore all hypotheses I can for this. Including god.

If you are doing the exploration why are you asking me for the evidence?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Question is: Why are you making this about me, and not the thread topic?

I am not making this about you - if I was the Mods would have intervened already. I am dealing with the posts.

Festus wrote: »

If you are doing the exploration why are you asking me for the evidence? I am not making this about you - if I was the Mods would have intervened already. I am dealing with the posts.

The question was all about me.

This is a debate thread on the existence of god. I am asking you for your evidence in that spirit. No one is compelling you to reply to me. You are asking me why I am asking for the evidence.... but given this is a thread debating the existence of god I would turn the question around as to why you might expect I would NOT ask you for it. How do you envision a debate on the subject proceeding if I did not exactly?

My discourse is not limited to you. I have met with priests, theologians, done debates with and without audiences, on and off line. I have.... unlike many theists in those theisms..... actually read many of the religious texts and in several versions.... as well as supporting literature from writers on the subject.... met with politicians in at least 5 countries discussing the political impact of religion on their politics......... defended school curriculums and other institutions from the advances of religion....... and much much more.

Festus wrote: »

What case?

My earlier posting:
What annoys me intensely is hearing religious groups telling us to live our lives their way, or face an eternity of misery. If we live good lives, without praying to some organisation's deity, we should be left alone to get on with our short stay on this Earth

You have beautifully proved my point.

Festus wrote: »

I would caution that if you are a baptized Catholic you should satisfy yourself as to the consequences of your actions.

I think I have lost the train of your other conversation here so to help get me up to speed.... what actions do you refer to exactly.... and what are the consequences of which you speak?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question was all about me.

Some would call that paranoia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is a debate thread on the existence of god.

What is the motion? is it "God Exists" or "God does not exist"

Because the title is "Existence of God debates" one from infer that the motion is either "God exists" or that there are a number of ways of debating this.

If the former there should be a supporting argument for the contrary position i.e. "God does not exist".

If the latter is suggests there is more than one way to skin a cat and hence arguments for the non-existence or god should be presented if they exists along with all other arguments.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No one is compelling you to reply to me.

nor you to me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are asking me why I am asking for the evidence.... but given this is a thread debating the existence of god I would turn the question around as to why you might expect I would NOT ask you for it. How do you envision a debate on the subject proceeding if I did not exactly?

My issue is I see no evidence for the non-existence of God. If there are people who genuinely believe there is no God or that God may not exist I expect to see solid evidence for this.
All I can see is a argument that says that either you have no evidence or your evidence is insufficient or unsubstantiated therefore your position is wrong.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My discourse is not limited to you. I have met with priests, theologians, done debates with and without audiences, on and off line. I have.... unlike many theists in those theisms..... actually read many of the religious texts and in several versions.... as well as supporting literature from writers on the subject.... met with politicians in at least 5 countries discussing the political impact of religion on their politics......... defended school curriculums and other institutions from the advances of religion....... and much much more.

Which interests you more - finding God or negating arguments for God.

Festus wrote: »

Some would call that paranoia

Or accurate. Given a question about my motivation for seeking evidence for god is about me, not the thread.

Festus wrote: »

What is the motion? is it "God Exists" or "God does not exist"

There is no one motion that I am aware of. All discussions about gods existence end up in this thread on this part of the forum. My own contention is simply that the idea there is a god is an idea presented to us without substantiation of any kind. A contention that has not been challenged meaningfully thus far. I seem to be genetically unable to believe things for which there is no basis for believing. A limitation that seemingly other people do not have.

Festus wrote: »

My issue is I see no evidence for the non-existence of God.

A statement which in isolation sounds meaningful but when unpacked says nothing at all. Because there are a huge multitude of things we similarly have no evidence for the non-existence or truth of. Everything from the idea that lizard like aliens in human costumes are running our country...... to fairies.... to russels teapot.

Festus wrote: »

Which interests you more - finding God or negating arguments for God.

I see no distinction and I explained why in a post you appear not to have read.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

My issue is I see no evidence for the non-existence of God. If there are people who genuinely believe there is no God or that God may not exist I expect to see solid evidence for this.
All I can see is a argument that says that either you have no evidence or your evidence is insufficient or unsubstantiated therefore your position is wrong.

You, me and the others here know that the non-existence of something cannot be proven, so let's look at the evidence of the existence first, then your answer was that you see it everywhere but you cannot show it to us as you have to believe in it yourself, and only then you will see it.
Or for the other readers here: I claim there is a pink unicorn in my room that snuggles me every night and brings me nice sleeps. So you might be compelled to see it, and I say you wont see it as it is invisible and cannot be touched as it exists outside of our realm, but if you believe hard enough in it, you will be visited by it during your sleep. Now you might challenge me why I know the invisible unicorn is pink, and I would say because it is written in the Harry Potter books that unicorns are pink.