The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Reply 740
Original post by Mistletoe
I don't care what other people believe about the Bible. I have my own beliefs. I believe that it was "God-breathed", but also that it was written by men who are flawed, as we all are, in a time where scientific knowledge wasn't what it is now. I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does, it's a classic atheist strawman to find scientific untruths in the Bible. Nobody cares. The Bible is about the development of Judeo-Christian ethics.

It's an illusion as much as consciousness is an illusion.


The bible is certainly not about developing a code of ethics. You cannot demonstrate consciousness to be an illusion. So much of what you're saying is flawed.

Listen. You have your own beliefs, but you should listen to others. Just because you have a belief, it doesn't mean that it's valid. I can demonstrate how many of the beliefs you've stated are false.

I'm just telling you that the bible falls apart if any of it is false. Any claim you make that any of it is incorrect can and must be challenged. In order for us to be consistent, we must recognise the importance of biblical inerrancy and what "God-inspired" or "God-breathed" means. The fact that you say "it was written by men who are flawed, as we all are" shows your misunderstanding of what the bible teaches and what Jesus taught about scripture. It is God speaking to us. - Jesus said this, and it's all over the bible. The books of the bible were written by different men, but the words don't come from those men. I would point you to 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 22:31 where Jesus said "Have you not read what God said to you..." and then he went on to quote a part of Exodus that records a time when the people Jesus was talking to hadn't even been born.

I can come up with other examples, but I encourage you to go and study these things. If you can show one sentence to be false, then please show us, because the rest falls apart (if we are to be consistent). We don't blindly believe things! We have good reason to believe what we believe.
Original post by davidguettafan
So why do people still believe in God?


Posted from TSR Mobile


I am god
Original post by Mistletoe
I don't read the Bible for scientific knowledge though...nobody does,


Young Earth Creationists obviously do.
Original post by Onde
Nope. I even clarified that "I did not say that things that WE are not able to observe do not exist.", after saying that I meant observable in the scientific sense.

Again, we do not yet know whether or not we are in a multiverse or whether or not anything preceded the universe: but either way, they are possibilities based on our understanding. In the case of a supernatural being such as god however, we do know that they do not exist and that they do not have any effect on reality.


How do we know this?
Original post by Onde
Because things that have no observable effect on reality do not exist and do not have any effect on reality. If such a thing was to be observed, it would be an oxymoron, so it is safe to say they do not exist.


This doesn't logically follow. Looks like you're arguing for metaphysical naturalism via appeal to ignorance - a fallacious argument. You're making an absolute claim by asserting X does not exist; surely you can formulate a deductive syllogism for your position.
Original post by Onde
Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.


Not really, no. The scientific method applies only to the physical world. Science, therefore, has nothing to say about anything other than the physical world, including whether or not anything other than the physical world exists. By bringing the scientific method into this you're just showing your ignorance of what the scientific method is, and what it's designed for.
Original post by Onde
Only natural phenomena exist. It would be absurd to be expected to provide evidence that the contrary is true. If a subject cannot be observed, following the scientific method we can dismiss it as a possibility.


Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.
Reply 747
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Not so simple, I'm afraid. Knowledge of metaphysical naturalism bears a stronger burden of proof than mere "lack of belief" in the supernatural.

The scientific method makes no claims about the ontological status of any unobservable entity.


An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RobML
An existing thing that is unobservable (i.e. is not a part of the chain of cause of effect of the physical world) is an oxymoron


Posted from TSR Mobile


Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.
Reply 749
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Unless you're begging the question and assuming metaphysical naturalism (which isn't well-defined in contemporary philosophy anyway), not really.


Things only exist by virtue of effects, no effects =/= no existence
Original post by RobML
Things only exist by virtue of effects, no effects =/= no existence


Who said so?
Reply 751
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Who said so?


It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
Properties cannot be defined without change.
In absence of properties there are no things.
Original post by RobML
It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
Properties cannot be defined without change.
In absence of properties there are no things.


There may be a more fundamental flaw than this, but I would point out that even if this were true these examples relate to physical objects only. No one believes God to be a physical object. This is just a category error. If physical objects exist by their effects, then so be it. God isn't a physical object.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 753
Original post by SunnysideSea
There may be a more fundamental flaw than this, but I would point out that even if this were true these examples relate to physical objects only. No one believes God to be a physical object. This is just a category error. If physical objects exist by their effects, then so be it. God isn't a physical object.

Posted from TSR Mobile


God must have physical properties in order to exert physical effects.
And if God is only made up of some form of abstract properties, then he is powerless and therefore not God.
Original post by RobML
God must have physical properties in order to exert physical effects.
And if God is only made up of some form of abstract properties, then he is powerless and therefore not God.


Your first sentence is an assumption I'm not sure you can sustain. Who says you must have physical properties to exert physical effects? No theist does, given that, as an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, theists would argue that a transcendant creator (without physical properties - since no physical world existed) created everything in the physical world. There is also no way of testing your assumption, since it lies beyond the reach of the scientific method.

From having 'abstract properties' it does not follow that God is powerless. Given that they are argued to have created the physical world, it is easy to see them as being superior to any physical property possible.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 755
Original post by SunnysideSea
Your first sentence is an assumption I'm not sure you can sustain. Who says you must have physical properties to exert physical effects?
Posted from TSR Mobile


It follows from properties being defined by effect/changes. It's self-evident, not something that requires empirical evidence.

From having 'abstract properties' it does not follow that God is powerless. Given that they are argued to have created the physical world, it is easy to see them as being superior to any physical property possible.


If you follow my argument, the most that God can be is a first effect, the first change from nothing to something. Else God cannot be defined in any meaningful way.
Original post by RobML
It just seems self-evident to me. Like for instance, a thing doesn't precede its properties, a thing is the properties. And properties are defined soley by effects (or changes), i.e. the speed of a thing is defined by change of position over time, shape of a thing is defined by changes in the motion of other things around it, etc.
Properties cannot be defined without change.
In absence of properties there are no things.


Putting aside the fact that platonists would disagree with your materialism and that the very notion of change, time and physical property could be emergent phenomena in theoretical physics, what makes you think changes must be confined to the physical world we observe?

I don't think you've met the burden of proof required to rule out supernaturalism.
Reply 757
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Putting aside the fact that platonists would disagree with your materialism and that the very notion of change, time and physical property could be emergent phenomena in theoretical physics, what makes you think changes must be confined to the physical world we observe?

I don't think you've met the burden of proof required to rule out supernaturalism.


Define a non-physical change?
Original post by RobML
If you follow my argument, the most that God can be is a first effect, the first change from nothing to something. Else God cannot be defined in any meaningful way.


God can be defined as the formless Cause of all causes; under occasionalism for example, all effects in the physical world are actualised directly by God, who is thought to be the Sustainer of the laws of nature.
Original post by RobML
Define a non-physical change?


You've already provided a plausible example, but I don't have to. Again, arguments from ignorance are not enough to establish metaphysical naturalism.

Quick Reply