There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    I understand what you mean. Sociopaths often act recklessly because they lack empathy. However, one can possess empathy (i.e. understand someone else's emotion) but still lack the sympathy to act upon it.
    Ah! Yes ok, I see your point, yes my definition was wrong/inaccurate then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    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.
    I am sorry if I posted a reply in the wrong place. I still can't cut and paste so go figure.

    I agree with you that there is no Christian God. There is only God. The creator of everything that exists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    The earthly origins of God can be traced in literature, too.
    Some conceptions of God, perhaps.

    And forget "creatures" then. How about we all live in a computer simulation?
    Funnily enough, that's a very real possibility in light of digital physics.

    And anyway, I myself do not discount that there is an entity out there that created the universe. I find it unlikely, but yes, I would not wholly discount it.
    There's a version of the ontological argument which depends on the mere logical possibility of the existence of God. This is perhaps why certain atheists, like Quentin Smith, argue for the impossibility of the existence of God.

    But what I do discount, and anyone capable of rational thought should discount, is a so-called God, that is benevolent, among other things, and displays all of the characteristics as described in holy texts.
    Not so fast. The believers of those holy texts can use certain forms of arguments to counter any arguments against their religions, even if their holy books are full of apparent contradictions and errors.

    What you are talking about, that entity, that is far removed from the God we are talking about here.
    Personally, I don't subscribe to classic monotheism but I can appreciate the element of subjectivism when it comes to the portrayal of the Divine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    If you believe that God is not bound by logic then there is no point in taking this argument further, considering that arguments are built on logic.

    I wish you well and I look forward to burning in hell.
    I also wish you well. BTW, I think the only person who will burn in hell is Satan.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I also wish you well. BTW, I think the only person who will burn in hell is Satan.
    What will happen to heretics like me, then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    Humans are still built around selfishness. There may be glimmers of altruism as evolution can favor certain altruistic organisms to further the entire human race as a whole. But for the most part, humans are selfish.

    I doubt that the 4 year old will stop beating people up because he is beaten up himself. He will probably stop beating people up if his parents tell him off or if he is punished. The whole reason why capitalism works is that people are selfish and greedy.
    I don't believe so, there is a lot you would not do because you know how badly it hurts. The same way around, I think sometimes, if you have never experienced something (like lets say a really bad illness), it is hart for you to feel true empathy for someone who experiences this (lets say someone who has cancer). You kind off feel that you can't quite have empathy for this person because you've never lived anything near this. This is why, I would say, the laws and your parents are here to fill in the gaps of the things you have not felt (so you don't punch someone just because you have not been punched), but for the gran majority, what you do because it is right, and don't do because it is wrong, is mostly directed by your empathy.
    Capitalism works because the Rich never felt what it is like to be poor; don't even look or read about it and are told that the poors wanted to be in this situation to start with. I think the people who are the least selfish are the people who suffered, and therefore, are pushed by their empathy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Typical thing an atheist would say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    Do you mean "determinism" instead of "determination"?

    You cannot base an argument regarding God's existence around something like "it would be really bad if God didn't exist". Arguments regarding God's existence must appeal to reason, logic and evidence.

    The argument that you just made would be more suited to an argument about whether the world is better off with or without religion.

    Furthermore, I do not believe that atheists are as naive as religious people. There are of course exceptions, but most atheists would likely believe in God if a reasoned argument were to be made. However, Christians still believe in God in spite of many good arguments which suggest his non-existence.
    First of all, yes, I meant determinism and not determination, sorry, my mistake. Then, I never said "it would be really bad if God did not exist". I was just saying, for me, believing in God means believing that our moral values are not exclusively created by determinism and evolution, but also, by something else, like a big man in the sky with a big white beard .
    I think the truth is, nobody knows if God exists or not, this is why Agnostics are "more right" than more atheists and Religious. Both are just convinced that their arguments are enough, but I think none of theirs are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dilysmedic)
    I don't believe so, there is a lot you would not do because you know how badly it hurts. The same way around, I think sometimes, if you have never experienced something (like lets say a really bad illness), it is hart for you to feel true empathy for someone who experiences this (lets say someone who has cancer). You kind off feel that you can't quite have empathy for this person because you've never lived anything near this. This is why, I would say, the laws and your parents are here to fill in the gaps of the things you have not felt (so you don't punch someone just because you have not been punched), but for the gran majority, what you do because it is right, and don't do because it is wrong, is mostly directed by your empathy.
    Capitalism works because the Rich never felt what it is like to be poor; don't even look or read about it and are told that the poors wanted to be in this situation to start with. I think the people who are the least selfish are the people who suffered, and therefore, are pushed by their empathy.
    I think you have a rather optimistic view about humanity. I believe that humans can very quickly forget about empathy if it benefits them. The fact that most murderers come from backgrounds filled with pain and misery perhaps shows that.

    I do not think that the rich. Furthermore, capitalism can facilitate one rising from the 'bottom to the top' which would be impossible for you because these people have felt what it is like to be poor.

    Of course empathy can steer one's course of action, but I think that humans can easily be swayed by the idea of a reward.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dilysmedic)
    First of all, yes, I meant determinism and not determination, sorry, my mistake. Then, I never said "it would be really bad if God did not exist". I was just saying, for me, believing in God means believing that our moral values are not exclusively created by determinism and evolution, but also, by something else, like a big man in the sky with a big white beard .
    I think the truth is, nobody knows if God exists or not, this is why Agnostics are "more right" than more atheists and Religious. Both are just convinced that their arguments are enough, but I think none of theirs are.
    Well, saying that "believing in God means that our moral values are not exclusively created by determinism and evolution" is not a logical fault in atheism so I suppose it is an argument that says "it would be really bad..."

    Regardless, it seems like religion helps you so I suppose it doesn't really matter if God actually exists or not.

    I should just say that most atheists are just "agnostics". Agnosticism seems to be a term that has come into use recently.

    But atheism, in the broadest sense, means the absence of belief in a God. It doesn't mean the belief that God does not exist. Of course, some atheists say with certainty that God does not exist but I would say that they are in the minority and that if you question an atheist for long enough then they would eventually accept that it is possible that a God could exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    Typical thing an atheist would say.
    I know, funny that, innit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Some conceptions of God, perhaps.



    Funnily enough, that's a very real possibility in light of digital physics.



    There's a version of the ontological argument which depends on the mere logical possibility of the existence of God. This is perhaps why certain atheists, like Quentin Smith, argue for the impossibility of the existence of God.



    Not so fast. The believers of those holy texts can use certain forms of arguments to counter any arguments against their religions, even if their holy books are full of apparent contradictions and errors.



    Personally, I don't subscribe to classic monotheism but I can appreciate the element of subjectivism when it comes to the portrayal of the Divine.
    I am not familiar with that version.

    No ****, that is why it's very hard to argue against theists. They just change the playing field every time they need to.

    And well I can't. You start with "there is the possibility of something with certain characteristics existing" and you end up with "see, god is real and it's irrational to think otherwise".

    And as that other dude in this thread has demonstrated, they don't understand the difference between assumption and premise. That guy is 100% convinced his assumptions are in fact, fact. And then as I said above, somehow this entity has characteristics that well isn't that kind of what the Bible describes God as if we look here and here, and well you know we must deduce that that particular God is real.
    Offline

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


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think too many people misinterpret God as an old funky wise guy with a long white beard and sandals. According to many religious scriptures, God is formless and is thought of as an energy, not a person, and this alone eliminates many of the misconceptions held.
    In terms of physics: energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If matter was created in the Big Bang, there must have existed some form of energy prior to the conversion. An admirably religious person told me that this is God.
    Based on that idea, this is what I theorise. Energy has the potential to affect and even manipulate matter through the pizoelectric effect. God is the most powerful packet energy because this is a universe worth of energy we're talking about, equating to an innumerable number of joules. Due to the butterfly effect, the overall pizoelectric effect on matter is colossal and can hence have the potential to impact situations detrimentally.

    This is an extremely brief and one-sided argument and does not account for all beliefs. To me, the idea that God is portrayed as having some sort of a conscience is unfathomable; I think of God as a name given to a physical concept, rather than an agony aunt who will solve all of your problems if you just pray enough. God is an energy, so it doesn't speak a language; it interacts with inner thoughts, which are fundamentally transmissions of energy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smartsy)
    I think too many people misinterpret God as an old funky wise guy with a long white beard and sandals. According to many religious scriptures, God is formless and is thought of as an energy, not a person, and this alone eliminates many of the misconceptions held.
    In terms of physics: energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If matter was created in the Big Bang, there must have existed some form of energy prior to the conversion. An admirably religious person told me that this is God.
    Based on that idea, this is what I theorise. Energy has the potential to affect and even manipulate matter through the pizoelectric effect. God is the most powerful packet energy because this is a universe worth of energy we're talking about, equating to an innumerable number of joules. Due to the butterfly effect, the overall pizoelectric effect on matter is colossal and can hence have the potential to impact situations detrimentally.

    This is an extremely brief and one-sided argument and does not account for all beliefs. To me, the idea that God is portrayed as having some sort of a conscience is unfathomable; I think of God as a name given to a physical concept, rather than an agony aunt who will solve all of your problems if you just pray enough.
    But that is exactly what many people believe in. It is exactly why people pray. Heck there is even the entire Bible Belt in the US that teaches creationism.

    And all those concepts you talk about, energy, formlessness. Those have just been interpreted into scripture by people that have realized claiming anything else would be wholly foolish. Very typical of theists. Always changing the playing field the interpretation in order to adapt to criticism. Every time we discovered more of the world, people read the Bible again and said, oh no, yes yes guys this is exactly what this passage really meant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure if I've posted in here before since all these threads start to look alike after a while

    Butall I'm gonna say is, there doesn't need to be "evidence" because that's the purpose of BELIEF:

    that you don't have to see, touch, hear, smell, you just BELIEVE IT????

    Eugh I'm goin a bed :nothing:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Not sure if I've posted in here before since all these threads start to look alike after a while

    Butall I'm gonna say is, there doesn't need to be "evidence" because that's the purpose of BELIEF:

    that you don't have to see, touch, hear, smell, you just BELIEVE IT????

    Eugh I'm goin a bed :nothing:
    No, that is faith.

    A belief is based on something and that's the point, all logic and reason says you shouldn't believe.

    But still very good point, I have no problem with people just saying "I have faith". It's when they start trying to justify it, start trying to manipulate other people into having faith.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Not sure if I've posted in here before since all these threads start to look alike after a while

    Butall I'm gonna say is, there doesn't need to be "evidence" because that's the purpose of BELIEF:

    that you don't have to see, touch, hear, smell, you just BELIEVE IT????

    Eugh I'm goin a bed :nothing:
    makes sense
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I am not familiar with that version.
    It's the modal variant of the ontological argument. Some logicians would say the argument begs the question; nevertheless, it's still a fascinating argument that requires deep inspection to see its limitation.

    No ****, that is why it's very hard to argue against theists. They just change the playing field every time they need to.
    It's not so much as them changing the playing field, rather it's to do with exploring every possibility to see what sticks. Both sides do it. I've seen many atheists appeal to absolute defeators to stop religious apologetics before it can even get off the ground i.e. aliens could have done some miracle X/insert other imaginative naturalistic explanation for an alleged miracle.

    And well I can't. You start with "there is the possibility of something with certain characteristics existing" and you end up with "see, god is real and it's irrational to think otherwise".
    That's pretty much what the modal ontological argument is supposed to show, but in order to show why it's flawed you must either deny one of the premises, or question the rule of inference that's used to go from some set of premises to some conclusion(s).

    And as that other dude in this thread has demonstrated, they don't understand the difference between assumption and premise. That guy is 100% convinced his assumptions are in fact, fact.
    Could you elaborate a bit more on this? Not sure who you're talking about. How would you define "premise" and "assumption" respectively?

    And then as I said above, somehow this entity has characteristics that well isn't that kind of what the Bible describes God as if we look here and here, and well you know we must deduce that that particular God is real.
    Having debated Christians and seen their debates with other people, Christians usually bring up additional arguments to go from generic theism to their specific brand of Christian theism. An example would be William Lane Craig's argument concerning the historical resurrection of Jesus, or the Muslims' claim that the Qur'an itself is miraculous from a linguistic perspective, or Richard Swinburne's argument from religious experiences, etc. Of course, these arguments may not be successful in "proving" a specific religion's claims. But again as people relying on reason and logic we need to show why these arguments are flawed instead of dismissing them by mockery.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    Humans are still built around selfishness. There may be glimmers of altruism as evolution can favor certain altruistic organisms to further the entire human race as a whole. But for the most part, humans are selfish.

    I doubt that the 4 year old will stop beating people up because he is beaten up himself. He will probably stop beating people up if his parents tell him off or if he is punished. The whole reason why capitalism works is that people are selfish and greedy.
    Just the desire alone to want is not greed and wanting to hold for ones own consumption something you enjoy is not selfishness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As irksome as the all elusive answer is and will always be, suggests that the question is one which needn't be asked. Can any of you prove to me what you dreamt last night? Impossible. Can anyone know what will be dreamt tomorrow? Dreams exist without proof being necessary, in every sense. God is the same, as color is to the blind. I believe in no religion but I believe God is with us and for us. Can anyone prove me wrong. Sweet dreams.
 
 
 
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: October 16, 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
Would you rather have...?
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.