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

Harika

I was just thinking, when we cannot verify that god exists, how about to verify the existence of satan, what would then imply god? But as far as I look through the proof for him, it is the same as for god. Invisible, does not want to be seen, except when tempting Jesus, lives outside time and the world of flesh, sounds like god to me.
So both parties don't want to be seen or measured and only one party left written documentation on earth. Without this documentation we would not even know about the second one.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I never claimed that it was evidence ... just that it is a logical reason to believe in God.

So it is not evidence for god. We are agreed.

J C wrote: »

My post was primarily directed at Safehands

It was a reply to me. I replied to the reply to me. So your claims were false.

J C wrote: »

you haven't clarified your position on Safehands post, that started all of this, and which I believe to be

Nor am I required to. If you have a problem with his posts, take it up with him.

RikuoAmero

Another logical reason NOT to use Pascal's Wager is that, since it is purely a game about playing the odds, someone thinking of using it (like J C) has to realize that the odds of picking the wrong god/wrong religion are infinitely larger than picking the right god (if there is one, and if he actually does reward you for picking him for such a vacuous reason), since there are so many different gods and so many different religions.
It also doesn't address the problem of avoiding hell from other religions. Okay you say, pick christianity so as to be rewarded by God and get into christian heaven. Wait...what if because you picked christianity, you found out after death that the real god is Allah who punishes you for the sin of believing a man could be divine? At that point, you've done nothing at all to try and mitigate that problem.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Another logical reason NOT to use Pascal's Wager is that, since it is purely a game about playing the odds, someone thinking of using it (like J C) has to realize that the odds of picking the wrong god/wrong religion are infinitely larger than picking the right god (if there is one, and if he actually does reward you for picking him for such a vacuous reason), since there are so many different gods and so many different religions.
It also doesn't address the problem of avoiding hell from other religions. Okay you say, pick christianity so as to be rewarded by God and get into christian heaven. Wait...what if because you picked christianity, you found out after death that the real god is Allah who punishes you for the sin of believing a man could be divine? At that point, you've done nothing at all to try and mitigate that problem.

No, you are incorrect to say that the odds of picking the wrong god are infinitely larger than picking the right god.

The only way infinity enters into this calculation is that the odds against are infinitely larger when it comes to the likelihood of the atheist picking the right god.

ABC101

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Another logical reason NOT to use Pascal's Wager is that, since it is purely a game about playing the odds, someone thinking of using it (like J C) has to realize that the odds of picking the wrong god/wrong religion are infinitely larger than picking the right god (if there is one, and if he actually does reward you for picking him for such a vacuous reason), since there are so many different gods and so many different religions.
It also doesn't address the problem of avoiding hell from other religions. Okay you say, pick christianity so as to be rewarded by God and get into christian heaven. Wait...what if because you picked christianity, you found out after death that the real god is Allah who punishes you for the sin of believing a man could be divine? At that point, you've done nothing at all to try and mitigate that problem.

I think that is a bit simplistic really.

Christianity, Islam and Judadism believe in the same God.

Furthermore... I believe God is just.... he looks at people and judges them for the good they have done with respect to their circumstances in life. In effect.. not what you have done... but how you have done it given the circumstances you were in.

As Jesus said... there are many rooms in my fathers house, so it does not matter if you are Islamic, Jewish or Christian... or one of the other religions from Asia etc, as long as you have shown a love for God, and a love + kindness to your fellow man.

If it was the case God was very judgemental... and you were unsure of what religion to join, because as you say... I could join one religion... but the odds are against me that I get it right, because God could be in favour of someother religion.... then it would be self defeating. There would be no point in becoming religious at all... because the odds would be against you.

That sort of Logic does not strike me as coming from a divine and infinititely knowledgeable loving Being.

RikuoAmero

No, you are incorrect to say that the odds of picking the wrong god are infinitely larger than picking the right god.

The number of false/unreal/nonexistent/whatever-term-you-want-to-use gods is infinite. That set contains all gods imagined in the past, imagined during the present day and yet to be imagined in the future.

As Jesus said... there are many rooms in my fathers house, so it does not matter if you are Islamic, Jewish or Christian

I cannot count the number of times I have been told by followers from all three religions that I have to believe in their religion (this is more christians and muslims, not so much jews). Christians will point to the bible with passages saying one has to believe Jesus is the son of God, who died and was resurrected; muslims will point to their quran and say how Allah declares it a sin to believe a man could be divine.
All you've done is pointed out to me contradictions, which I have long been aware of.

tommy2bad

To be honest, I suspect Pascal was being ironic with his wager. It's possibly the worst reason to believe in anything.
However it dose point to a starting position, if their is a God? Then.... And thats the problem the 'if'. At a time when the default position was belief then doubt could be dismissed with reference to pascals wager much more easily. Now the default is non belief* in a God the whole thing seems whimsical at best.

*Probably the default is more spiritual but not religious, I suspect this is the real majority denomination.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The number of false/unreal/nonexistent/whatever-term-you-want-to-use gods is infinite. That set contains all gods imagined in the past, imagined during the present day and yet to be imagined in the future.

Nice try, but you're still wrong. The total of such imaginations will still be a finite number (unless you're going to argue that the universe, and indeed theists, will continue to exist for ever rather than for a finite duration).

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Nice try, but you're still wrong. The total of such imaginations will still be a finite number (unless you're going to argue that the universe, and indeed theists, will continue to exist for ever rather than for a finite duration).

Okay, I concede the point that it may well not be literally infinite, but how about might as well be infinite, or close to infinite in size? Since these gods are non-existent, the only limit to them is what humans can imagine.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, I concede the point that it may well not be literally infinite, but how about might as well be infinite, or close to infinite in size? Since these gods are non-existent, the only limit to them is what humans can imagine.

The problem here is that there being no god at all is just one more state of affairs that we can imagine with respect to divinity, and there is no a priori reason why it has any greater likelihood of corresponding to reality than all the near-infinite number of other states of affairs that we can imagine with respect to divinity.

The "what are the odds?" argument is no more a sound argument in favour of atheism than it is a sound argument in favour of any particular theism. If anything, it's an argument for humility; whatever position we adopt here, we need to acknowledge the possibility that we may be wrong.

And this is where Pascal's wager (which, like others, I don't find remotely convincing) comes it. Pascal is essentially saying "look, granted that whatever I believe may turn out to be wrong, would I prefer to take the risk of believing in God and then discovering that I am wrong, or of disbelieving in God and then discovering that I am wrong?"

But the reward/punishment calculus he suggests we use to approach this dilemma itself assumes that, if there is a god, he rewards believers and punishes unbelievers. But why should we accept this assumption? Is it not equally possible that, for example, the god who turns out to exist might reward those who seek the truth in priority to personal advantage, and punish those who seek personal advantage in priority to truth? Such a God would punish those who were persuaded to belief by Pascal's wager, and reward those who rejected it as bogus. Or is it not equally possible that the god who turns out to exist might not assign rewards or punishments at all? Or we can imagine a near-infinite number of other attitudes that the god who turns out to exist might take towards belief.

In short, Pascal's wager is not a good foundation for belief in God. But the near-infinite variety of conceptions of God that exist is not a good argument for disbelief in God. People choose belief or disbelief for other reasons.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, I concede the point that it may well not be literally infinite, but how about might as well be infinite, or close to infinite in size? Since these gods are non-existent, the only limit to them is what humans can imagine.

Hmm, now you are compounding your mathematical error with a logical fallacy.

You are calculating the odds of which gods may or may not exist. But in doing so you are, a priori, assuming that they don't exist.

That is what is known in logic as 'begging the question.'

RikuoAmero

Nick Park wrote: »

Hmm, now you are compounding your mathematical error with a logical fallacy.

You are calculating the odds of which gods may or may not exist. But in doing so you are, a priori, assuming that they don't exist.

That is what is known in logic as 'begging the question.'

This is all done within the framework of Pascal's Wager. P.W. doesn't give me much, if anything, to use to calculate mathematically anything, nor is there any rigid logic in it. P.W. attempts to play the odds, but completely ignores the problem of there being claimed many different gods and religions, most of which have a hell component to their belief system reserved for unbelievers.
Also...I'm the one assuming these gods don't exist? Isn't that what believers in one religion or another do? They say their god exists, and then disregard the possibility of any and all other gods.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This is all done within the framework of Pascal's Wager. P.W. doesn't give me much, if anything, to use to calculate mathematically anything, nor is there any rigid logic in it. P.W. attempts to play the odds, but completely ignores the problem of there being claimed many different gods and religions, most of which have a hell component to their belief system reserved for unbelievers.
Also...I'm the one assuming these gods don't exist? Isn't that what believers in one religion or another do? They say their god exists, and then disregard the possibility of any and all other gods.

No, no, no. The position is much more varied that that. There are lots of religious which don't posit a hell, and lots of religions which do posit some kind of hell, but don't consing unbelievers there.

And there are lots of religions which don't "disregard the possiblity of any and all other gods". Muslims are monotheists, but they happily agree that they worship the same god as Jews and Christians. (Most) Christians and Jews take the same view. Each tradition may assert that the others have failed to understand some aspect of God, but not that the others are worshipping some different and entirely imaginary God. Hindus do not assert that the God worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims does not exist. Buddhism, by and large, does not concern itself with whether the god(s) worshipped by other religions (and, in the case of some Buddhists, any god at all) exists or not. And so forth.

Atheism is as culturally-bound as any other belief position. A good deal of currently-popular atheist positions - at least, in the Anglosphere - comes from the US, and is underpinned by the assumption that all religious belief resembles evangelical American Protestantism - or, worse still, resembles an atheist caricature of evangelical American Protestantism. That assumption is just not true, even in its more benign form.

The notion that religious beleivers generally disregard the gods worshipped in all the other religious traditions to which they do not belong is false, and a rejection of relgious belief which is justified by appealing to that notion is - ironically - based on a disregard of the variety of relgious traditions that exists.

RikuoAmero

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

tommy2bad

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

Don't feel bad, believers do this to each other all the time! It's not just atheists that get the treatment.

The fact that their is no agreement on everything doesn't prove anything other than that people will disagree.

catallus

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

lazygal

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

No if anything I'm less cool since I rejected salvation.

J C

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

It all depends on whether it's before or after death, whether those who reject Salvation feel cool ... or not.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

To be honest, I suspect Pascal was being ironic with his wager. It's possibly the worst reason to believe in anything.
However it dose point to a starting position, if their is a God? Then.... And thats the problem the 'if'. At a time when the default position was belief then doubt could be dismissed with reference to pascals wager much more easily. Now the default is non belief* in a God the whole thing seems whimsical at best.

It's the exact same wager whether there is a general belief in God or not.
If He exists and is everything He says He is, then you have everything to gain (and nothing to lose) from believing on Him ... and everything to lose, if you don't.
If He doesn't exist you have nothing to lose from believing in Him either.
If you believe in God, its a two way bet on a 'two horse race' (that God exists or not) ... but if you don't believe in Him, you're betting your eternal life on the result.
It is therefore quite logical to believe in God, irrespective of the odds that He exists.
... and the odds are a certainty that He (or something very like Him) exists BTW ... making it an imperative to believe in Him ... and not reject His Salvation, if people don't wish to be judged under His justice but wish to be pardoned under His mercy.

J C

ABC101 wrote: »

I think that is a bit simplistic really.

Christianity, Islam and Judadism believe in the same God.

Furthermore... I believe God is just.... he looks at people and judges them for the good they have done with respect to their circumstances in life. In effect.. not what you have done... but how you have done it given the circumstances you were in.

As Jesus said... there are many rooms in my fathers house, so it does not matter if you are Islamic, Jewish or Christian... or one of the other religions from Asia etc, as long as you have shown a love for God, and a love + kindness to your fellow man.

If it was the case God was very judgemental... and you were unsure of what religion to join, because as you say... I could join one religion... but the odds are against me that I get it right, because God could be in favour of someother religion.... then it would be self defeating. There would be no point in becoming religious at all... because the odds would be against you.

That sort of Logic does not strike me as coming from a divine and infinititely knowledgeable loving Being.

You make some valid points there ... however, God will not force anybody to believe on Him ... and He will accept, with a heavy heart, all rejections of His Salvation.
... and then comes the judgement ... and I don't think that the (limited) kindness that we may have shown our fellow man will balance up any of the many sins that we have committed against him and her, to say nothing about the totality of our sin against God.
Its a fact that only God can fully atone for sin ... and we are unable to do so.

MrPudding

catallus wrote: »

Maybe rejecting salvation makes people feel cool?

Can you not see how utterly idiotic this statement is? Seriously, who would knowingly reject salvation? Who would make a decision to intentionally not believe something knowing that by doing so one would be condemning oneself to eternal suffering at the behest of a childish supernatural being.

We don't reject salvation. To reject something implies that one actually believes it exists. We reject your 'evidence' for your god. We don't believe in your god and then reject it. That would be retarded. I can't make myself believe in you god. As a result I don't believe there is salvation and I am certainly not rejecting it.

Also, Pascals Wager is really pretty stupid. First, for the reason I gave above. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in. There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway. Secondly, is your god stupid? Could it not tell when someone was pretending to believe just to hedge his bets? Does he know but doesn't care because his childish need to be worshipped is so great that he will even accept those that don't really believe...? Some kind of sad 'bums on seats' needyness?

And what is this obsession with theists thinking atheists are only in it to look cool? Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

MrP

catallus

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

Hey. I am cool!

Harika

J C wrote: »

It's the exact same wager whether there is a general belief in God or not.
If He exists and is everything He says He is, then you have everything to gain (and nothing to lose) from believing on Him ... and everything to lose, if you don't.
If He doesn't exist you have nothing to lose from believing in Him either.
If you believe in God, its a two way bet on a 'two horse race' (that God exists or not) ... but if you don't believe in Him, you're betting your eternal life on the result.
It is therefore quite logical to believe in God, irrespective of the odds that He exists.
... and the odds are a certainty that He (or something very like Him) exists BTW ... making it an imperative to believe in Him ... and not reject His Salvation, if people don't wish to be judged under His justice but wish to be pardoned under His mercy.

Still the questions which of the 5000 gods, that are or have been worshiped by people, is the true? While you can say, doesn't matter as long as you worship, this depends how you worship. Because doing one thing is fine with some gods, does not matter for others or is a capital crime for others.
Even when you choose one, you live your life after the ideas of one of the 5000, and even as it makes no sense or against your own feeling you are doing what it commands, while in reality you could have had such a nice life before your death.
I have my difficulties to believe that if I am judged at the end of my life and I am standing next to a righteous person that have had never had contact to the "right" religion and a criminal mastermind who on the death bed committed to the right god, while living the whole life in sin and working against people, god would send the criminal to heaven and the other two to hell.

lazybones32

MrPudding wrote: »

We reject your 'evidence' for your god.... There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway.

MrP

What would constitute 'evidence' for you though? Mathematical problems and solutions?; arguments?; miracles?; something concrete, physical, tangible?; beauty?

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Can you not see how utterly idiotic this statement is? Seriously, who would knowingly reject salvation? Who would make a decision to intentionally not believe something knowing that by doing so one would be condemning oneself to eternal suffering at the behest of a childish supernatural being.

Who would indeed?
... yet many do ... often rejecting Salvation very stridently, actually ... I put it down to pride myself ... the principle of not asking anybody for anything ... including God.

MrPudding wrote: »

We don't reject salvation. To reject something implies that one actually believes it exists. We reject your 'evidence' for your god. We don't believe in your god and then reject it. That would be retarded. I can't make myself believe in you god. As a result I don't believe there is salvation and I am certainly not rejecting it.

Salvation is available to you ... and you have the freedom to embrace it or to reject it. Equally, as a free agent you can believe on Jesus Christ ... or not, as you see fit.

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, Pascals Wager is really pretty stupid. First, for the reason I gave above. I can't make myself believe in something I don't believe in.

Belief ... or not, is a voluntary action, that you can do or not do, as you see fit. Support for your belief in God is available in the physical evidence all around you for His action. Again, you can choose to accept or reject this evidence as well.

MrPudding wrote: »

There is no evidence for the existence of god, how can I make myself believe in it anyway. Secondly, is your god stupid? Could it not tell when someone was pretending to believe just to hedge his bets? Does he know but doesn't care because his childish need to be worshipped is so great that he will even accept those that don't really believe...? Some kind of sad 'bums on seats' needyness?

God doesn't want to be blindly worshipped ... He wants to save us from ourselves ... for our own good ... not His.

MrPudding wrote: »

And what is this obsession with theists thinking atheists are only in it to look cool? Are you a theist because you want to look not cool?

MrP

Mr P ... you're a cool guy ... now ... and I'd like you to stay that way ... for eternity ... but the decision is yours and yours alone.

RikuoAmero

Belief ... or not, is a voluntary action, that you can do or not do, as you see fit.

Then tell me how I can believe something that I am not convinced of. Examples of actual voluntary actions include sitting down on a chair or remaining standing, speaking or remaining silent, choosing between different portions of a meal to start eating, etc.
How do I flip the metaphorical switch called belief in my head, so that I believe something that, at that moment in time, I do not believe?
I predict that you're going to quote Aquinas. Don't bother. I studied him and rejected what he wrote.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context . . .

And rightly accused, obviously. You could, if you choose, go through the major religions' holy books and quote-mine for texts in support of the diametrically opposite view, with equally gratifying results.

Quote-mining isn't forming your beliefs on the basis of the evidence; it's deliberately selecting only the evidence which supports the preconception you have decided for other reasons to adopt, while taking care to remain ignorant of any less convenient evidence. I'm slightly surprised to find you admitting that this is how you would make the case for this particular belief of yours.

Nick Park

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Sigh...looks like I have to spend the next little while going back to the major religion's holy books, finding quotes that posit that there is a punishment after death for non-believers, copy and paste them, only to later be accused of taking them out of context, or of not understanding them or interpreting them wrong.
In fact, I'm not even going to bother now. I've done it all before.

Or you could always make a genuine attempt to understand the subject you're arguing about, rather than trying to rip quotes out of context to win an argument.

If I wanted to enter a subject on Geology. I would first make an honest attempt to understand what geologists believe, and to read up on the subject. I wouldn't just select some sentences from a geology book and then, devoid of context, try to construct an argument around them.

Now, maybe we should address your point about the large number of gods that have been imagined or believed in over the years (we'll leave aside your sophistry of trying to discuss all possible gods that might be imagined in the future.)

You are missing one major point - namely that the vast majority of such posited deities is an argument against you, not for you.

You see, Christians do not insist that all other conceivable gods do not exist - they might well exist as entities that fall short of being the one Almighty God. (To illustrate this point, imagine a tribe that worships Tony Blair as a god. Christians will disagree with them over the issue of Tony's deity - but that does not mean that Christians deny the existence of Tony Blair).

So, to be a Christian, it is not necessary to prove that all other gods are non-existent. You simply need to be convinced that Jesus is who he, and his first followers, said he was. And, if someone feels that that the evidence produced for that position is convincing, then their belief in Christianity is based, to a greater or lesser degree, on the available evidence.

However, the situation is somewhat different for the atheist. If there is a near-infinite number of possible gods, as you have argued so forcibly, then it is obvious that you cannot have examined the evidence for the existence of even a tiny fraction of such deities. Therefore, in order to make the assertion that 'there is no god', you have to abandon evidence based reasoning and logic and make a leap of faith.

(This applies only to 'atheists' who are defined as those who deny the existence of a god, or gods. It does not apply to agnostic atheists who basically don't know if there's a god or not, but stop short of asserting the non-existence of any or all gods).

So, on philosophical and logical grounds, we can say that Christianity is a position reached, at least in part, by the examination of evidence, whereas the atheism that confidently asserts the non-existence of any god is a matter of blind faith.

ABC101

J C wrote: »

Support for your belief in God is available in the physical evidence all around you for His action. Again, you can choose to accept or reject this evidence as well.

It is more than just physical evidence of God existance.

Many people when discussing the proof of the existance of God mention the physical world around us i.e. Earth, Solar system, Universe, variety of biological life on Earth etc etc etc.

But what must not be forgotten is the relationship which develops between a believer and God.

When a Christian undergoes a journey of faith, implementing their faith in their daily life, calling on God, talking to God, asking for help with problems in their personal life etc etc a form of personal evidence slowly develops... problems get mysteriously solved, questions get answered for the believer.

It is akin to being married.... and asking the question "How do I know my spouse really loves me?"

But after the first year... one looks back on the evidence of good work your spouse has done for you... all the acts of love... it might be just buying flowers, remembering special dates, cooking dinners, personal sacrifices the other has made so that you can go out with your friends on various evenings etc.

There are of course many other examples of evidence which I have not mentioned above which show your spouse loves you.

As year after year passes... the evidence of 'acts of love' accumulate.. so one's certainty of their commitment to you increases. Provided both spouses work at their marriage. Although in some cases... even if one spouse is abusive ... the other spouse can still carry out great acts of love, kindness to the other.

So it is with God. The person who strives to love God more, deepen their faith, they enter into and continue to develop a personal relationship with God.

For believers ... evidence of God is two fold... there is the physical evidence of the universe and all the physical things in it. This evidence is external to the person.

Then there is the evidence / acts of love which developed between the believer and God. This is internal evidence for the believer. Their conscience confirms that this is right, this relationship is good.

St Faustina Kowalska in Poland... developed a very intense deep love of God and Jesus Christ in her daily life. Her Diary book is a very informative read, and gives great insight into the relationship between God and herself and how the relationship progresses.

MrPudding

ABC101 wrote: »

As year after year passes... the evidence of 'acts of love' accumulate.. so one's certainty of their commitment to you increases. Provided both spouses work at their marriage. Although in some cases... even if one spouse is abusive ... the other spouse can still carry out great acts of love, kindness to the other.

So convenient that you god is only associated with the nice stuff.

MrP