There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I just want to point out that the reformation happened for vital theological reasons. You may want to do some more reading on the theology behind the split. It wasn't just because of divorce, which is what British schools tend to focus on in history lessons. The reformation wasn't just about improving the Catholic Church. There were and still are fundamental theological problems with what it teaches. It's a matter of authority - who do we go to for truth about God and why?

    Look up concepts like sola scriptura, sola fide, these are so vital to the topic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never attended a British RS class...

    And well that is exactly what I am saying Islam should do - an official reinterpretation of the Quran and its teachings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Its illogical not to believe in God.
    (Original post by Fred5134)
    It is illogical to provide a supernatural explanation for something without any evidence. Baseless beliefs are not worth anything.
    Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.

    You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.

    But you need to see 3 things:
    1) when we do scientific experiments, we must assume a methodological naturalism. This allows us to isolate causes, get to reproducible results, and therefore learn about the mechanisms in the universe (how things work, how things happen).
    2) what you're doing is extrapolating methodological naturalism (there are no extraneous, 'supernatural' forces acting in the experiment, simply the laws of physics and chemistry, a closed system) to the entire universe (the universe is a closed system, there is no supernatural, just physics and chemistry)
    3) finally, you have no basis to trust the validity of the assumptions of science. I'm not saying that science is not valid. I'm saying that you have faith in the tenets of science, and you have extrapolated them into a philosophy called naturalism. You don't have evidence for what you believe. You cannot for example demonstrate how human reasoning is valid.

    I'm very happy to chat further about this stuff. It's all about worldviews, it's not about evidence. We have the same evidence. We interpret it differently.

    Also, scientific theories are improved upon when new evidence is discovered, or are cast aside if proven to be false or if a better theory comes along. This is a strength.
    Religious theories do not change to fit the evidence, and anything in the religious texts that is completely wrong is conveniently ignored or excused away. This is a weakness.
    I can understand why you say these things, but you are guilty of what you say the religious are guilty of. It's quite clear, if you would think about the philosophy behind your statements.

    I will give you one illustration. I was talking about God with a friend when he said there's no evidence for his existence. I asked him, "What would count as evidence of God to you? How could God prove his existence to you?"
    He said, "If God were to give an indisputable sign, like if he were to move the stars into the shape of words saying, 'I AM GOD. WORSHIP ME.'"
    I said, "Would everybody believe then? Would everybody think that was convincing evidence? How sure would you be that it wasn't aliens from another planet, and they'd worked out how to move the stars? People would believe all sorts of things. And each belief would be faith."
    Science can't approach the question of the supernatural. As soon as you start to talk about God, you leave the scientific method, and you venture into philosophy, theology and history. If you insist non-scientific sources of truth are not valid then you give up science itself and then you don't believe in anything.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.

    You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation". Has nothing to do with science, or implying anything.

    And I just just skimmed through the rest of your post. So you are actually supporting our argument - not everyone would agree what evidence even is, and in the end it's just faith and what people believe. That's all we are saying, believing in God is blind faith. Nothing more and all those people not admitting that, and instead trying to justify his existence or even prove it, are delusional fools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation". Has nothing to do with science, or implying anything.

    And I just just skimmed through the rest of your post. So you are actually supporting our argument - not everyone would agree what evidence even is, and in the end it's just faith and what people believe. That's all we are saying, believing in God is blind faith. Nothing more and all those people not admitting that, and instead trying to justify his existence or even prove it, are delusional fools.
    At least respect me enough to read what I said and reply to it. I took time to explain his fallacy - you didn't approach my explanation or ask me for clarification of terms like 'begging the question' or 'the scientific method'. I took time to explain the implications of using science as a source of truth. I explained the conversation I had with a friend who also doesn't believe in God. I showed how his reasoning is faulty - science doesn't deal in the supernatural. You are mistaking naturalism (a philosophy that you cannot prove is true) for science. I also pointed to this idea that you have no basis to absolutely trust any of your knowledge - it's circular - faith-based, like the theists you are mocking.

    But you won't respond to what I actually said.

    Finally, I want to reply to this idea of blind faith. I think one of the things with Christians is that they can live consistently with what they profess to believe. You can't live consistently with your atheistic belief - nobody does (I would point you to morality, love, justice, responsibility for people's actions, validity of the senses and reason as just a few contradictory things you steal from the theistic framework everyday). Indeed, we all rely on (have faith in) things outside of ourselves in order to formulate a worldview. But if you can't live consistently with what you believe, then it's not a convincing worldview.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    At least respect me enough to read what I said and reply to it. I took time to explain his fallacy - you didn't approach my explanation or ask me for clarification of terms like 'begging the question' or 'the scientific method'. I took time to explain the implications of using science as a source of truth. I explained the conversation I had with a friend who also doesn't believe in God. I showed how his reasoning is faulty - science doesn't deal in the supernatural. You are mistaking naturalism (a philosophy that you cannot prove is true) for science. I also pointed to this idea that you have no basis to absolutely trust any of your knowledge - it's circular - faith-based, like the theists you are mocking.

    But you won't respond to what I actually said.

    Finally, I want to reply to this idea of blind faith. I think one of the things with Christians is that they can live consistently with what they profess to believe. You can't live consistently with your atheistic belief - nobody does (I would point you to morality, love, justice, responsibility for people's actions, validity of the senses and reason as just a few contradictory things you steal from the theistic framework everyday). Indeed, we all rely on (have faith in) things outside of ourselves in order to formulate a worldview. But if you can't live consistently with what you believe, then it's not a convincing worldview.
    I think it is unfair to say that "beliefs" in science are similar to theistic beliefs. It is about a degree of certainty. Yes, I cannot be sure that the keyboard that I am typing on right now exists but there are at least reasons to believe that it does exist, even if those are not conclusive. I will not place my hand on my heart and profess that I have faith that the keyboard exists, only that I have empirical evidence and other compatible experiences that point to the idea that the keyboard exists.

    You cannot say that it is reasonable to believe in God just because an atheistic view is just as arbitrary. In any case, the difference that I see between religion and science is that science is willing to admit that it is wrong. It actively attempts to question itself and disprove its own theories. Religion, however, is purely built on dogma that is refuses to change.

    In your last point, how can a Christian live consistently with their beliefs when so many of them are contradictory. The fact that God is omnipotent, the existence of evil or that humans have free wills are all contradictory with another belief in the bible.

    I am an atheist (or at least a strong agnostic) but I do not believe that my view is that of an obvious contradiction. I do not believe in an objective morality etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    So why do people still believe in God?


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Oh boy so edgy. Live and let live mate, people can believe what they want. You all look stupid when you're trying to make the other side look like the bad one, the argument is going nowhere. Be the bigger person whatever side you're on and shut up. Debating something when one side says "there's no evidence he exists" and the other saying "there's no evidence he doesn't exist" is getting nowhere, the real question should be if he did exist, would it be a good thing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProbablySmart)
    Oh boy so edgy. Live and let live mate, people can believe what they want. You all look stupid when you're trying to make the other side look like the bad one, the argument is going nowhere. Be the bigger person whatever side you're on and shut up. Debating something when one side says "there's no evidence he exists" and the other saying "there's no evidence he doesn't exist" is getting nowhere, the real question should be if he did exist, would it be a good thing?
    Since he's on a thread that is debating the existence of God, I do not think it is unfair for him to debate the existence of God.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Ok. I can explain how this statement is illogical and highlights your self-contradiction. It's because you're using the begging the question fallacy.

    You are implying that science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God if God exists, and therefore because it hasn't, it's unreasonable to believe he exists.

    But you need to see 3 things:
    1) when we do scientific experiments, we must assume a methodological naturalism. This allows us to isolate causes, get to reproducible results, and therefore learn about the mechanisms in the universe (how things work, how things happen).
    2) what you're doing is extrapolating methodological naturalism (there are no extraneous, 'supernatural' forces acting in the experiment, simply the laws of physics and chemistry, a closed system) to the entire universe (the universe is a closed system, there is no supernatural, just physics and chemistry)
    3) finally, you have no basis to trust the validity of the assumptions of science. I'm not saying that science is not valid. I'm saying that you have faith in the tenets of science, and you have extrapolated them into a philosophy called naturalism. You don't have evidence for what you believe. You cannot for example demonstrate how human reasoning is valid.

    I'm very happy to chat further about this stuff. It's all about worldviews, it's not about evidence. We have the same evidence. We interpret it differently.



    I can understand why you say these things, but you are guilty of what you say the religious are guilty of. It's quite clear, if you would think about the philosophy behind your statements.

    I will give you one illustration. I was talking about God with a friend when he said there's no evidence for his existence. I asked him, "What would count as evidence of God to you? How could God prove his existence to you?"
    He said, "If God were to give an indisputable sign, like if he were to move the stars into the shape of words saying, 'I AM GOD. WORSHIP ME.'"
    I said, "Would everybody believe then? Would everybody think that was convincing evidence? How sure would you be that it wasn't aliens from another planet, and they'd worked out how to move the stars? People would believe all sorts of things. And each belief would be faith."
    Science can't approach the question of the supernatural. As soon as you start to talk about God, you leave the scientific method, and you venture into philosophy, theology and history. If you insist non-scientific sources of truth are not valid then you give up science itself and then you don't believe in anything.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do not think it is self-contradictory, what he has said. Otherwise you would be discounting nearly every inductive argument ever formulated.

    Inductive argument are, by definition, not conclusive but they are not self-contradictory on the basis that their premises may be false. Just because something is not conclusive, it does not make it baseless. I suppose his scientific evidence has some base, even if it is not conclusive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    Isn't it crazy to believe in someone that doesn't exist though?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When you consider their is an equal amount of evidence to suggest there is no God as there is to convince anyone there is, isn't it just as crazy to dismiss, out of hand, an idea that has been around for a few thousand years despite attempts to eradicate it. It does seem as though we are "hardwired" to see the possibility of a Creator.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Untill man can create life i will continue to refuse atheism. It is the one thing that god can do but man cannot.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Stars come from hydrogen and helium which were formed in the big bang.It is unknown where matter came from.The big bang merely describes the expansion of the universe from a single point.It doesnt describe anything before that.Where matter comes from.How life began.Whether this is the only universe.All unknown.But thats the job of science.Science is a process to find out some of the answers if we can.Just because you dont know something doesnt mean you can just say god did it.The correct response is to say ok we dont know but lets try and find out.Even if we never find out at least we tried.Some people cant stand not knowing so they say it must be god.But the truth is we dont know what its all about and anyone who says they do is lying.
    Why do we say that just because we have come to understand anything that occurs in nature, lightening, earthquakes, DNA, whatever, that God can now be taken out of the equation. Every chemical, force, and process that makes anything possible was created and is sustained by God.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Well I call it "Easter Bunny syndrome" - as a child you are led to believe that the Easter Bunny/Santa/The Tooth Fairy exists, you have an unshaeable belief that they do and it embeds into your psyche until you are proven otherwise. (Trust me it look me a long time to stop believing Santa exists :cry2:. It's the same with God, except it's very likely that we'll never be proven he doesn't exist so we believe that he does. Blind faith, yes. I'd rather worship something tangible like a tree or something.
    The process of maturing tells you there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. The same maturing process tells many that there is a God even if they've never been encouraged to believe in Him.

    You are free to worship anything you like. Every man has been given a measure of faith and he is free to put it where he chooses. You can worship the creation,( a tree), or you can worship the Creator.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    I think it is unfair to say that "beliefs" in science are similar to theistic beliefs. It is about a degree of certainty. Yes, I cannot be sure that the keyboard that I am typing on right now exists but there are at least reasons to believe that it does exist, even if those are not conclusive. I will not place my hand on my heart and profess that I have faith that the keyboard exists, only that I have empirical evidence and other compatible experiences that point to the idea that the keyboard exists.

    You cannot say that it is reasonable to believe in God just because an atheistic view is just as arbitrary. In any case, the difference that I see between religion and science is that science is willing to admit that it is wrong. It actively attempts to question itself and disprove its own theories. Religion, however, is purely built on dogma that is refuses to change.

    In your last point, how can a Christian live consistently with their beliefs when so many of them are contradictory. The fact that God is omnipotent, the existence of evil or that humans have free wills are all contradictory with another belief in the bible.

    I am an atheist (or at least a strong agnostic) but I do not believe that my view is that of an obvious contradiction. I do not believe in an objective morality etc.
    In your third paragraph you outline what you claim are contradictory beliefs; Gods omnipotence, the existence of evil, etc. with a belief in the Bible. How so?
    God is omnipotent, evil exists because God created it.( Revelations), and I do indeed have free will. How is this contradictory with Scripture?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some people still believe in ghosts etc
    Maybe they just want to believe that the world is better than it is

    Also in poorer countries where people aren't as affluent many believe in God as a way of hope for better life (i.e. heaven/afterlife) which is justification for the hardships they have to face in their current life.

    (Not trying to say this is why everyone believes in God or stereotyping theists as poor people)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    In your third paragraph you outline what you claim are contradictory beliefs; Gods omnipotence, the existence of evil, etc. with a belief in the Bible. How so?
    God is omnipotent, evil exists because God created it.( Revelations), and I do indeed have free will. How is this contradictory with Scripture?
    Ok,

    1) Omnipotence as a concept is self-contradictory. Just think "can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" Whether he can or cannot, leads to a contradiction.

    2) Evil is contradictory with other elements of his nature- Omnipotence and omnibenevolence. As Epicurus said:

    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

    Essentially, evil is incompatible with the existence of God. Many theologians have attempted to "justify the ways of God to man", but are largely unsuccessful and require many dogmatic Christian beliefs to make them work.

    3) You say that you have free will but that is simply an arbitrary belief based on very little evidence.

    It is contradictory with the nature of God because if God is the creator of everything and he knows everything then how can he create you with free will. It's like God has written a book where he knows everything that will happen for certain but somehow the characters in the book are free to do anything they want. It's very hard to make sense of it without claiming that "God can just do it... just cus".

    Hope this helps. Faith is the only way to believe in God. Unfortunately, there is very little reason involved.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    When you consider their is an equal amount of evidence to suggest there is no God as there is to convince anyone there is, isn't it just as crazy to dismiss, out of hand, an idea that has been around for a few thousand years despite attempts to eradicate it. It does seem as though we are "hardwired" to see the possibility of a Creator.
    Well, the sensible position to hold is to claim that we cannot know. I do not know the exact position of the person that you were replying to, but most sensible atheists would not say that God does not exist for certain. Simply that there is no reason to believe in a God.

    However, there is good reason to believe that there is no Christian God as that particular God is self-contradictory making his existence an extreme improbability.

    The only good evidence for the Christian God is probably eye-witness testimony of the miracles of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. However, these are obviously very old, there are possible rational explanations and there is also eye-witness testimony from other conflicting religion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    The process of maturing tells you there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. The same maturing process tells many that there is a God even if they've never been encouraged to believe in Him.

    You are free to worship anything you like. Every man has been given a measure of faith and he is free to put it where he chooses. You can worship the creation,( a tree), or you can worship the Creator.
    Urm? Why do you believe that believing in God is a sign of maturity?

    A large reason that many people believe in God is to comfort them. The existence of a God allows for a heaven, to see loved one's again, to have an objective moral standard, to have good people be rewarded etc.

    Surely the mature thing to do is to accept the harshness of life without needing a God to cling onto for comfort?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by white.daniel)
    Untill man can create life i will continue to refuse atheism. It is the one thing that god can do but man cannot.
    Can't tell if you're taking the piss or not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    At least respect me enough to read what I said and reply to it. I took time to explain his fallacy - you didn't approach my explanation or ask me for clarification of terms like 'begging the question' or 'the scientific method'. I took time to explain the implications of using science as a source of truth. I explained the conversation I had with a friend who also doesn't believe in God. I showed how his reasoning is faulty - science doesn't deal in the supernatural. You are mistaking naturalism (a philosophy that you cannot prove is true) for science. I also pointed to this idea that you have no basis to absolutely trust any of your knowledge - it's circular - faith-based, like the theists you are mocking.

    But you won't respond to what I actually said.

    Finally, I want to reply to this idea of blind faith. I think one of the things with Christians is that they can live consistently with what they profess to believe. You can't live consistently with your atheistic belief - nobody does (I would point you to morality, love, justice, responsibility for people's actions, validity of the senses and reason as just a few contradictory things you steal from the theistic framework everyday). Indeed, we all rely on (have faith in) things outside of ourselves in order to formulate a worldview. But if you can't live consistently with what you believe, then it's not a convincing worldview.
    Why do I need to read your argument when the assumption you make, upon which the argument is based on, is wrong? Everything you said may be true - but that doesn't matter since the assumption is wrong. So if I read it and say wow yes I agree or lulz no that's rubbish, makes no difference.

    You talk about respect? How can I respect someone so arrogant as to claim a monopoly on those things? Another reason why people like you trying to justify theism are infuriating. In fact, that is one of the most arrogant things about theists ever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Why do I need to read your argument when the assumption you make, upon which the argument is based on, is wrong? Everything you said may be true - but that doesn't matter since the assumption is wrong. So if I read it and say wow yes I agree or lulz no that's rubbish, makes no difference.

    You talk about respect? How can I respect someone so arrogant as to claim a monopoly on those things? Another reason why people like you trying to justify theism are infuriating. In fact, that is one of the most arrogant things about theists ever.
    I am a fellow atheist but I do not understand what you are talking about. If everything that he/she said was true then how can the assumption be wrong?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.