Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

Let's just ban anybody who isn't:

me
Kwayera
Iron
moll.
Graney
jb nc
Rafy
zimmermanguy
Schroe
NTB
Shakespeare
Exphate
Kfunk.

Agreed?

I'm deserving

 

[moll.]

I'm deserving

No you're not.
It's the NCAP 133+ squad. You're not invited.

 

[Cookie182]

This is obviously the hardest philosophical discussion to have- because at some point, it engages every school of philosophical thought. I’ll attempt to spill a few current thoughts of mine:

I have to say, on weight of everything I've currently ever read; atheism has the stronger of the two arguments. In many ways, a major strength is the acceptance of change. Religious denomination is largely fixed- any major change in thought creates a new denomination (which then remains fixed- i.e. the Anglican split from Catholicism as a simplistic example) as opposed to a change in ideology (this is mainly true for strict, literal sects whose basis for reasoning is the fixated words of a text).
Science is in constant flux- theories are disproved and new ones grow out of them. Anyone who claims to be scientific accepts this, not with trepidation, but with praise. IMO it is science's greatest attribute.

Certainly whilst our senses do vary to degrees- we all do perceive the same physical reality. On that basis, an atheist and a theist can both simultaneously observe a waterfall, can both hear its sound, take in the smell of fresh water, taste it and of course feel it on their skin. The burden to prove its existence beyond the current scientific explanation (which simply comes through testing hypothesis with logical, physical evidence) in a supernatural context lies on the theist. Atheists live in the realm of what we can all observe- there is an acceptance of uncertainty- that we currently do not know how something fully works, but we may in time. In many ways, this gives a calming effect in itself- an acceptance only of the present. It allows one to appreciate the beauty of what lies in front of them.

The theist proposes a fixated, certain explanation in regards to everything observable and the future (heaven e.g.). The onus then becomes on them to 'prove' it. This is simply because the theist is making the higher assumption; out of person A and person B they are making the assertion. Theist’s love the pre-meditated rebuttal of “disprove it”. However, this line of argument alone makes a basic logical error; an acquaintance with the atheist’s thoughts to “it” even existing in the first place- since ‘it’ (or we could say God for simplicity) was originally the theist’s assertion, not that of the atheist. If both person A and person B are observing entity X, and (as much as religious people hate to admit) they ARE both just seeing X, then the theist makes the hypothetical assumption that whilst they can only see X, X+ Y also exists. Hence, the burden to prove the existence of Y (a hypothesis of the theist’s mind) lies exclusively on the theist as the Atheist never even contemplated Y in the first place.

 

[moll.]

Does this post have a unique point, or was it just a basic refutation of religious traditions, an explination of how non-physical phenomena are observed only by some and yet another explination of burden of proof?

 

[Cookie182]

Does this post have a unique point, or was it just a basic refutation of religious traditions, an explination of how non-physical phenomena are observed only by some and yet another explination of burden of proof?

Do any posts have a point then? Isn't this thread simply an expression of people's thoughts? If you’re attacking the logical elements of my thread in relation to it's strength's as a philosophical argument, then I am quite happy for you to do so- I expect there to be errors, given that I wrote it on the spot. Please provide a sensible deconstruction and rebuttal. Otherwise, if your just criticising for the sake of your ego- then I will have to question whether this a valid, mature discussion.

 

[moll.]

It had no conclusion. It had an introduction to engage my interest (which it did) and multiple logical and eloquently expressed points. However, it did not have either a conclusion or a segue to tie the points together. It was all over the place.

EDIT: It also did not answer, refute or advance and basic statement. It appeared to be just a collection of your random thoughts on the vast topic of religion.

 

[Iron]

I hear your criticism, Cookie, but from where i'm standing, a fraction of a percentage of doubt is enough to run on the God side with. You stick to what we know and that's admirable, but I think that the God question rests on propositions that we could never hope to know with certainty on earth. It is necessarily and simply beyond our human inventions of understanding. That's not to say that we should embrace a lack of knowledge and seek to preserve all mystery - indeed, the advancement of knowledge is a good and beautiful search for truth - but I think that it's your side who is jumping to the conclusion that there is no rule behind the rule

 

[moll.]

I hear your criticism, Cookie, but from where i'm standing, a fraction of a percentage of doubt is enough to run on the God side with. You stick to what we know and that's admirable, but I think that the God question rests on propositions that we could never hope to know with certainty on earth. It is necessarily and simply beyond our human inventions of understanding

Holy shit Iron, did you just state Pascal's Wager?
Shame on you, good man!

 

[Cookie182]

It had no conclusion. It had an introduction to engage my interest (which it did) and multiple logical and eloquently expressed points. However, it did not have either a conclusion or a segue to tie the points together. It was all over the place.

EDIT: It also did not answer, refute or advance and basic statement. It appeared to be just a collection of your random thoughts on the vast topic of religion.

Well I appreciate that and will work on it refining it, but two brains are better then one. As an atheist yourself, perhaps you would like to extend on the logical points I made (you can disregard stuff of course) and perhaps we can derive at a conclusion. I guess you are right; I never set out to say a lot, perhaps only on the matter of the Burden of Proof. Which, after reading your post, has come to my attention that it has already been extensively discussed. At this moment though, I have to continue with uni work, but I will subsequently return...

Edit: There is no disagreement there, it was random thoughts as oppossed to a well expressed, small essay. However, I would love to formalise my thought more on the topic and appreciate your objective reading and criticisms.

 

[Cookie182]

I hear your criticism, Cookie, but from where i'm standing, a fraction of a percentage of doubt is enough to run on the God side with. You stick to what we know and that's admirable, but I think that the God question rests on propositions that we could never hope to know with certainty on earth. It is necessarily and simply beyond our human inventions of understanding. That's not to say that we should embrace a lack of knowledge and seek to preserve all mystery - indeed, the advancement of knowledge is a good and beautiful search for truth - but I think that it's your side who is jumping to the conclusion that there is no rule behind the rule

I can see your point there Iron, in some way your argument would have to suggest that biologically we can never have 100 percent certainty? Because, if we did have 100 percent certainty in what we know (which is what we see), then religion would never have been invented in the first place. That proposes a problem for my argument doesn't it lol. However, we could simply say that when religious thought first began- humans lacked any formalised knowledge or mechanism such as the modern scientific method, and hence any unexplained phenomena was directly linked to the "supernatural". Something which would seem futile these days with the amount of previously "supernatural" occurrences over the past subsequently being explained by science, as scientific thought continues to grow.

Edit: The fundamental flaw though I see in what you said was "the God question rests on propositions that we could never hope to know with certainty on earth". Surely, as a devout Christian you hold 100 percent certainty. This certainty encompasses that the Bible is the word of God and that his Son, Yeshua of Nazareth, came to Earth and died as humanity's savior. If you held even a small, fractioned percentage of doubt regarding this, then by my definition, you would be Agnostic. Therefore, this refutes your first statement- as for you, there is no intrinsic, human doubt in regards to the God question as your very belief in the preposition of Christianity shows that such knowledge is not beyond "human inventions of understanding" as by definition, Christianity, as an organised school of spiritual thought is a human invention.

 

[Iron]

Sure, i'm not pointing to specific mysteries on earth and claiming it as proof for God's existence. We can all see that that would be foolish. But I would defend those earlier beliefs in as far as people were identifying the beauty and goodness in God's creation. Even if a high percentage of their truths could later be obtained by man, it still does not even touch the ultimate meaning of creation and purpose. So even though the age of reason has made the proposition of creation less likely, it has far from defeated the idea. Indeed, the outright rejection of the idea has formed the basis of some of the greatest horrors wraught upon man in the last century - particularly the evil and contorted truths behind nationalism, communism and, most recently, neo-liberalism

but i suspect that we all know this

 

[Iron]

Edit: The fundamental flaw though I see in what you said was "the God question rests on propositions that we could never hope to know with certainty on earth". Surely, as a devout Christian you hold 100 percent certainty. This certainty encompasses that the Bible is the word of God and that his Son, Yeshua of Nazareth, came to Earth and died as humanity's savior. If you held even a small, fractioned percentage of doubt regarding this, then by my definition, you would be Agnostic. Therefore, this refutes your first statement- as for you, there is no intrinsic, human doubt in regards to the God question as your very belief in the preposition of Christianity shows that such knowledge is not beyond "human inventions of understanding" as by definition, Christianity, as an organised school of spiritual thought is a human invention.

The context of what I was talking about is propositions put by man, resolved through man's reason etc. As I see it, you first must settle the God question, which is essentially a 'toss of the coin', depending on various factors. The second question is one of religious history and I quickly conceed the difficulty of proving this ahead of other contesting truths regarding religion. But I dont claim to know God's mind on this, I only claim that living a life devoted to loving your neighbour and honouring the universal moral code attached to this (dont steal, kill, covet, fornicate etc) is essentially the path all good people can agree on.

 

[Cookie182]

but I think that it's your side who is jumping to the conclusion that there is no rule behind the rule

In response to that, I'd say that the only rule we are accepting is that any hypothesis needs testing. The rules of physics before us at the waterfall, explaining why the water actually flows or falls, the chemistry behind it's makeup etc all came through hypothesis's and qualitative/quantitative testing until a viable, rational and reasonable (beyond any doubt) conclusion was made. At that point, the only rule we adhere to is that we are animals and our perceptional 'reality' is comprised through the input signals to our brain through our five senses. The atheist and the theist are of the same biological makeup- they both observe the same phenomena. Hence, the only rule being proposed is by the theist- that a sixth, supernatural sense exists. The fundamental flaw is not the proposition- it is as valid as the proposition of gravity was when it was first made. The flaw is that this thought is instantly recognised as a rule when it is simply still a hypothesis. A hypothesis, that in general terms we may have been created by a higher power. A hypothesis that begs for physical proof and one that even the scientist can not deny (and why would they, as this level of thought still upholds the logical method) may one day be proven.

 

[Iron]

Sure, I dont claim that the spiritual sense is a rule adhering to the standards of man's scientific method. It's something that can only be sorted out by the individual. I mean, we believe that belief in a God does require a leap of faith as an act of good faith to prove our love. It makes sense to me that the rules are rigged to avoid proof of the divine. It's a test of will

 

[Cookie182]

I guess to simplify, my argument was swaying away from the root question of the thread: "Does God exist?”. I think that rationally it is at best a logical hypothesis to propose- I have no issue with that (no scientist can say it isn’t, as you rightly pointed out, despite the evolution of man's knowledge, pointing the probability factor more towards 0). However, theist's go beyond the hypothesis- we literally have 100's of denominations saying they know God exists- they are skipping the method of logical thinking that has gotten us so far. Why debate at all, if we skip the elements of rational argument (and lets face it, nothing non religious gets debated in this way- why should religion be the exception?). Denominations fight each other under the assumption that they hold a universal law- that the basis of their hypothesis is true, yet there has never been any physical evidence on Earth of such an entity to support such a proposition. An until that day- everyone bar the atheist is simply conflicting over an 'estimated guess'.

 

[Iron]

I dont accept the attempts to paint religion as against reason; as I have said, science is a great thing and, when finding its purpose through the foundational concession that God exists, it has been of enormous benifit to human life. When it strays from Truth, all sorts of dark, perverted science is spurted, like the atomic bomb and cloning. However, religion is better thought of as being simply above or beyond reason - not opposed to it, but an ally in its search for truth and meaning

 

[Cookie182]

Sure, I dont claim that the spiritual sense is a rule adhering to the standards of man's scientific method. It's something that can only be sorted out by the individual. I mean, we believe that belief in a God does require a leap of faith as an act of good faith to prove our love. It makes sense to me that the rules are rigged to avoid proof of the divine. It's a test of will

See I find that a non-sensical and irrational statement of reasoning. If you were on a criminal trial- and the judge took a leap of faith (despite no evidence) that you were guilty- a movement purely based on the phenomena your labeling intuition , then you would instantly appeal- given that you’re an intelligent, rational member of this species. Then why have double standards of reasoning- why make an exception for religion? Subsequently, it is an arrogant leap then. An insult to the evolution of man's intellectual development. The greatest arrogance that lies in religion is the blind will to accept what you’re ‘told’ and not even entertain other schools of thought or criticism. Science constantly grows- through rigorous intellectual attacks, religion remains stagnant. As you said previously to Christina in this thread- there is little room within the Catholic Church for “dissent”- it embraces an “authoritarian” standpoint- it’s simply absolute. Now I can't tell you God does not exist- it certainly is an acceptable hypothesis to entertain alone (and by all means, undertake some scientific research into the area) but I can tell you, that until at least one piece of evidence arises, you do not have a rational reason to presume his existence if your going to follow logically structured human thinking. This places you in a quite a paradox.

 

[Cookie182]

I dont accept the attempts to paint religion as against reason; as I have said, science is a great thing and, when finding its purpose through the foundational concession that God exists, it has been of enormous benifit to human life. When it strays from Truth, all sorts of dark, perverted science is spurted, like the atomic bomb and cloning. However, religion is better thought of as being simply above or beyond reason - not opposed to it, but an ally in its search for truth and meaning

The predicted response- but this leads to an ad infinitum argument on your behalf. But before that, how can anything be 'reasoned' to be beyond reason ? Lol you can name "atrocities" which utilised science- but science itself is not the ideology , it is simply an explanatory tool. Scientific methods have created everything we know- ancient armies learned the 'science' behind making swords- this made them weapons, it didn't make them kill with it. That would have been ideology spurred through religion- inquisition, the Crusades etc.

Obviously, you are fixed in your ideology- however I am not. If you produced evidence of God, I would believe. However and this runs into the MAJOR influence over your cognitive state (which is upbringing), if I produced evidence that there was a god, but it was Zeus or Venus would you then drop your Christian ideology of God and accept this? I mean, how do you account for the fact that if you were born in India you would of, in all probability, been Hindu and believe in Lord Krishna or if you came from Saudi you would be Muslim? Are followers of those ideologies going to 'hell' in your view or their own Heaven? The atheist faces none of these problems- they rest on the theist to solve. However, they rest on that essential hypothesis being proven in the first place. But based on the amount of conflict we have had over the last 5000 years, I'd say religion jumped a little ahead of itself, taking that "leap" in basic rationality.

 

[Iron]

See I find that a non-sensical and irrational statement of reasoning. If you were on a criminal trial- and the judge took a leap of faith (despite no evidence) that you were guilty- a movement purely based on the phenomena your labeling intuition , then you would instantly appeal- given that you’re an intelligent, rational member of this species. Then why have double standards of reasoning- why make an exception for religion? Subsequently, it is an arrogant leap then. An insult to the evolution of man's intellectual development. The greatest arrogance that lies in religion is the blind will to accept what you’re ‘told’ and not even entertain other schools of thought or criticism. Science constantly grows- through rigorous intellectual attacks, religion remains stagnant. As you said previously to Christina in this thread- there is little room within the Catholic Church for “dissent”- it embraces an “authoritarian” standpoint- it’s simply absolute. Now I can't tell you God does not exist- it certainly is an acceptable hypothesis to entertain alone (and by all means, undertake some scientific research into the area) but I can tell you, that until at least one piece of evidence arises, you do not have a rational reason to presume his existence if your going to follow logically structured human thinking. This places you in a quite a paradox.

It's hardly a double-standard, or arrogance. We claim all the rules of logic, reason and science, we accept that our understanding of reality has progressed more fully over time. The point is that God is the apex of all reason and Truth - he is the end point, the reason why we have any reasons to begin with. Our creation is One and it is good! What is the point of all reason if it cannot lead to the God question? What is the basis of any truth at all, if there is no over-arching truth to bind them?

 

[Iron]

The predicted response- ....

I feel that you are ignoring my posts.