The Student Room Group

There is no evidence for God

Scroll to see replies

Secure the bag alert!!
Reply 781
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
Original post by Onde
"Only" the physical world? The physical world is "only" everything that exists, everything that is capable of being observed. If you have anything to say about anything else, it would be utterly meaningless.


this is a perfect example of begging the question.
Reply 782
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
Original post by Rohan187
I agree with that. So correct me if I'm wrong, it's not a "lack of belief" or "disbelief of a deity/God" but to some or most it's more, "disbelief in the Abrahamic view of a diety", right?


I think it depends on the atheist. I've spoken to some who say they believe there is no supernatural (naturalism). I've spoken to others who commit to "deism" - an impersonal god who has left the universe to itself. Some will say "I don't believe in the Christian God".

My point being, it's a label people give to themselves. It doesn't say very much about what they truly believe.
Original post by Pride
I think it depends on the atheist. I've spoken to some who say they believe there is no supernatural (naturalism). I've spoken to others who commit to "deism" - an impersonal god who has left the universe to itself. Some will say "I don't believe in the Christian God".

My point being, it's a label people give to themselves. It doesn't say very much about what they truly believe.


Okay, I get you. Thanks
Reply 784
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
Original post by davidoriakhi
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=sf3XGql8wAY

I think you guys should watch this


You know if you want to put a YouTube video in the chat, what you should do is embed it by using the [youtube] [/youtube) tags. You can also click the "insert video" button on the advanced bar. It just means we don't have to click a link to watch the video.
(edited 7 years ago)
[QUOTE="Pride;67704784"]You know if you want to put a YouTube video in the chat, what you should do is embed it by using the


Glad you watched it
Original post by Rohan187
I agree with that. So correct me if I'm wrong, it's not a "lack of belief" or "disbelief of a deity/God" but to some or most it's more, "disbelief in the Abrahamic view of a diety", right?


Pride is incorrect, it's not a position disguised as a non-position. Atheism is fundamentally a lack of belief in God, not an active disbelief. The vast majority of atheists are therefore agnostic atheists.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Pride is incorrect, it's not a position disguised as a non-position. Atheism is fundamentally a lack of belief in God, not an active disbelief. The vast majority of atheists are therefore agnostic atheists.


Thats incorrect, you guys actively disbelieve in the existence of God, who created the universe, as well as you and I. Its only inactive if you don't show it, which is clearly not what you are doing
Original post by davidoriakhi
Thats incorrect, you guys actively disbelieve in the existence of God, who created the universe, as well as you and I. Its only inactive if you don't show it, which is clearly not what you are doing


No, you are incorrect. How on Earth would you know what I believe? :lol:

I lack a belief in God as do most atheists. Inactive has nothing to do with not showing it, it's a fundamental difference of position.
Reply 789
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Pride is incorrect, it's not a position disguised as a non-position. Atheism is fundamentally a lack of belief in God, not an active disbelief. The vast majority of atheists are therefore agnostic atheists.


I was saying that when you ask the question "what do you believe?" or when you're in a discussion and you're trying to get an idea of someone's beliefs, saying "I lack a belief in God" is not a helpful answer because it's not a positive statement.

It's like this conversation:
"Who are you?"
"Well I'll tell you who I'm not..."
"No thank you! Just tell me who you are."

Do you see what I mean?
Original post by Pride
I was saying that when you ask the question "what do you believe?" or when you're in a discussion and you're trying to get an idea of someone's beliefs, saying "I lack a belief in God" is not a helpful answer because it's not a positive statement.

It's like this conversation:
"Who are you?"
"Well I'll tell you who I'm not..."
"No thank you! Just tell me who you are."

Do you see what I mean?


Honestly, I don't see what you mean.

If someone's answer is that they don't believe then they don't believe. I don't understand why that is not a helpful answer.

How is it not a positive statement?
Reply 791
Avatar for Pride
Pride
21
Original post by Patrick Wallace
Honestly, I don't see what you mean.

If someone's answer is that they don't believe then they don't believe. I don't understand why that is not a helpful answer.

How is it not a positive statement?


That would be helpful, as it sounds like they are saying they believe there is no God. It's when people say their atheism is a lack of a belief in God. It can be difficult to understand what their specific position is.
Original post by Pride
It can be difficult to understand what their specific position is.


It's very simple really. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic-atheists which means while they don't believe gods exist they are open to the possibility that one day someone will prove that gods do exist. They do not wish dogmatically to state that gods don't exist as there may be unseen evidence (or proof) that they do.

For all practical purposes they believe gods don't exist but their scientific sensibilities make them hold back on that.

If atheism is on a scale of 0 (believe they don't exist with no doubts) to 10 (believe they exist with no doubts) I am at 0.001, but I have found myself moving further towards 0, with respect to the Abrahamic god, as I have got older and learned more about how little historical authenticity there is in those parts of the Bible that are supposed to be historical accounts but which, in fact, are ancient legends dressed up as history.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
You've already provided a plausible example, but I don't have to. Again, arguments from ignorance are not enough to establish metaphysical naturalism.


Like swimming against the tide! You must feel like you are having a conversation in the 40's. A.J Ayer and Flew would be proud (if they, too, hadnt recounted ofcourse).

Posted from TSR Mobile
I think it's for peace of mind, they like to rely on this being that does not exist in order to feel better about things.
The way that the word atheism being used here is a redefinition of the word as it's use in philosophy of religion. But anyway, I am an agnostic, but there is evidence that God exists or at least arguments that aren't open to the sorts of usual objections you see online and on youtube. The thing is, even if there is evidence for God, there might also be evidence that there is no God, such that on balance it outweighs the evidence for. So one could be an atheist and believe there is no God, and consistently hold that there is evidence for God. My own view is that neither outweighs the other, and also there are experts on both sides of the debate.
Original post by benandjerry
there is evidence that God exists or at least arguments that aren't open to the sorts of usual objections


Really? Please do tell us what they are.
Original post by Good bloke
Really? Please do tell us what they are.


Book length treatments by people like Swinburne, Alston, Plantinga etc.
Original post by benandjerry
Book length treatments by people like Swinburne, Alston, Plantinga etc.


Oh dear! You don't look far for rebuttals, do you? They are obvious.

Swinburne is the chap that invented two principles:

The principle of credulity: without any reason to disbelieve, one should accept what appears to be true.

The principle of testimony: without any any reason to disbelieve, one should accept eyewitnesses or believers are telling the truth.

These are nonsense, of course. If I saw someone apparently walking on water or making an elephant disappear I would first consider that he is an accomplished magician and using deception to create the illusion. I don't expect I'd be wrong.

If someone came to me and told me they had seen someone rise from the dead I would immediately look into their motivation for the lie and also seek evidence to support or refute them.

I think the wonders of modern TV demonstrate to everyone that his principles are just plain silly.

Plantinga believed in intelligent design. Enough said.

I know nothing of Alston but he'd better have something rather better to offer than the other two. I suspect he doesn't.
As God's supposed to exist outside of reality nobody can really make any definitive statements for or against him/her/it, given that there's no hypothesis one could form that you could then run a definitive experiment for. So you can't really get any "evidence" for or against him either way. Making statements about God as though they're factual is stupid.

Original post by benandjerry
Book length treatments by people like Swinburne, Alston, Plantinga etc.


Didn't Plantinga do that ontological argument where in infinite possible worlds you'd have a (to paraphrase) "most great being" in one of them while ignoring the fact that in infinite worlds you're never going to a reach a maximum because it's infinite?

Something like that...

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you