There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I would call that weakness. The need to believe there is a point to your life.
    I don't believe there is a "point" to my life. The only purpose I'm aware of is to perhaps harm no one, remain aware that God created me and to show a little appreciation for that fact.

    Do you think there is a point to your life? If not are you sad or disappointed your life is meaningless?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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.
    At the end of the day it's still a philosophical argument. Philosophy is not science or mathematics.

    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.
    Seeing what sticks? I don't see how changing pretty much everything ex post, in accordance with the development of our understanding of the universe, can be re conciliated with them being so-called divine inspiration or even outright the word of God in case of Islam.

    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).
    Is it? I thought it's supposed to show a supernatural entity exists.

    Could you elaborate a bit more on this? Not sure who you're talking about. How would you define "premise" and "assumption" respectively
    A premise is something that has been observed as true. An assumption is "suppose x is true" and then you show if x then y. So even if their argument logically follows from x, it still means nothing because x is not true. It's just assumed to be true by them.

    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.
    Yes but I don't even see how it is generic theism. All they do is argue for some all powerful entity. For it to be generically "theistic" it must surely at least have some sort of evidence to a relationship with humans. But it doesn't. All they say is "well we have proven such an entity exists, and now it's much more rational to believe our God exists, than this entity exiting but it not being our God".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    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.
    Because there is no evidence for God.Your just asserting that it was God who created everything.You may as well just say a giant turtle is responsible for the universe and it would have equal validity.You're postulating an even more complex solotion to something that was already very complex.Complex things like humans dont just appear they start from simple begginings.God would have to be more complex than the universe so he doesnt solve the problem of how such a complex universe could appear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Because there is no evidence for God.Your just asserting that it was God who created everything.You may as well just say a giant turtle is responsible for the universe and it would have equal validity.You're postulating an even more complex solotion to something that was already very complex.Complex things like humans dont just appear they start from simple begginings.God would have to be more complex than the universe so he doesnt solve the problem of how such a complex universe could appear.
    They get around that by asserting God is timeless and space-less. He just is. Essentially they are saying he doesn't need to be explained, but everything else does.

    It's such a joke.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    At the end of the day it's still a philosophical argument. Philosophy is not science or mathematics.
    You know, if you were to look at my early posts on this forum you'll see me dismissing philosophy in a similar manner. No offense but people who dismiss philosophy and its aims generally do not understand it, or they've seen some obnoxious philosophical hand-waving in one area (i.e. theology) and extrapolate that to the entire field. This is ignorance a best, anti-intellectualism at worst. Any realm or system of thinking is concerned with philosophy. Formal logic (including mathematical logic) is a branch of philosophy. Science and its methodologies ultimately depend on the groundwork that was laid by philosophical thinkers. As someone who's studying physics at a degree level but has an interest in the history of science, I can see the intimate relationship between the aforementioned fields. Sean Carroll, a well known cosmologist and proponent of naturalism, puts it better than I can: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...ut-philosophy/

    There are valid objections against the ontological argument; "it's just a philosophical argument" is not one of them.

    Seeing what sticks? I don't see how changing pretty much everything ex post, in accordance with the development of our understanding of the universe, can be re conciliated with them being so-called divine inspiration or even outright the word of God in case of Islam.
    Sure it can be reconciliated. Your personal dislike of this approach has no bearing on the validity thereof.

    Is it? I thought it's supposed to show a supernatural entity exists.
    The term "supernatural" doesn't factor in the argument itself. It's concerned with a maximally great being, which may or may not be supernatural (depending on the coherence of supernaturalism itself).

    A premise is something that has been observed as true. An assumption is "suppose x is true" and then you show if x then y. So even if their argument logically follows from x, it still means nothing because x is not true. It's just assumed to be true by them.
    All facts that have been "observed to be true" may be used as premises, but not all premises can be empirically justified. The "if p then q; p, therefore q" form of argument is known as modus ponens. It's used in syllogisms, and when used as a deductive argument, in the hierarchy of reliable knowledge it ranks higher than scientific information, which is derived via inductive reasoning.

    Yes but I don't even see how it is generic theism. All they do is argue for some all powerful entity. For it to be generically "theistic" it must surely at least have some sort of evidence to a relationship with humans. But it doesn't. All they say is "well we have proven such an entity exists, and now it's much more rational to believe our God exists, than this entity exiting but it not being our God".
    You make a good point here. Having argued for a general, deistic God, the burden of proof lies on them to show that this God is concerned with human affairs. But that's precisely what the additional arguments I mentioned purport to do. Their success or failure is of course subject to debate, but the arguments are still there; the religious theists have made somewhat of an effort in this area.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    You know, if you were to look at my early posts on this forum you'll see me dismissing philosophy in a similar manner. No offense but people who dismiss philosophy and its aims generally do not understand it, or they've seen some obnoxious philosophical hand-waving in one area (i.e. theology) and extrapolate that to the entire field. This is ignorance a best, anti-intellectualism at worst. Any realm or system of thinking is concerned with philosophy. Formal logic (including mathematical logic) is a branch of philosophy. Science and its methodologies ultimately depend on the groundwork that was laid by philosophical thinkers. As someone who's studying physics at a degree level but has an interest in the history of science, I can see the intimate relationship between the aforementioned fields. Sean Carroll, a well known cosmologist and proponent of naturalism, puts it better than I can: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...ut-philosophy/

    There are valid objections against the ontological argument; "it's just a philosophical argument" is not one of them.
    Well, what I said is the conclusion of all those arguments

    Sure it can be reconciliated. Your personal dislike of this approach has no bearing on the validity thereof.
    No, it cannot.

    The term "supernatural" doesn't factor in the argument itself. It's concerned with a maximally great being, which may or may not be supernatural (depending on the coherence of supernaturalism itself).
    Forget supernatural then, just call it "this entity". Whatever you call it, doesn't matter.

    [QUOTE]All facts that have been "observed to be true" may be used as premises, but not all premises can be empirically justified. The "if p then q; p, therefore q" form of argument is known as modus ponens. It's used in syllogisms, and when used as a deductive argument, in the hierarchy of reliable knowledge it ranks higher than scientific information, which is derived via inductive reasoning.[/QUOTE ]

    You don't say.

    You make a good point here. Having argued for a general, deistic God, the burden of proof lies on them to show that this God is concerned with human affairs. But that's precisely what the additional arguments I mentioned purport to do. Their success or failure is of course subject to debate, but the arguments are still there; the religious theists have made somewhat of an effort in this area.
    And that effort is hugely based on them changing the story every time we learn something new.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    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.
    It is fallacious because it is circular reasoning. I attempted to explain this. Let me try again.

    Many atheists will say 'I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for that belief'. In reality, many atheists actually mean that there is no scientific evidence. But, as I have explained by going into the scientific method, scientific experiments do not (and indeed, must not) approach questions of the supernatural. So saying that there's no evidence is 'begging the question' - circular reasoning. It is to believe in naturalism, and therefore conclude that no evidence for God exists.

    (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.
    I can understand why you say this, and I have met many atheists who say the same thing. But with respect, it's not right. Let's discuss it further.

    You suggest that it's wrong to compare 'religious beliefs' to 'scientific beliefs', but you can't demonstrate how. Empiricism isn't somehow immune to the epistemological problems of an atheistic worldview. You still have the problem of not being able to validate your reasoning without using reasoning. You cannot validate your senses without using your senses.

    And at the same time, you act as though every religious belief has the same validity and likelihood of being true. Because of the exclusive nature of truth, it is possible that one is correct, and all the others are wrong. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that we all believe blindly. I'm saying that the historical Jesus is who he claimed to be. I'm saying that the biblical worldview is the only consistent one, and the one we all act is true, yet deceive ourselves into forming illogical worldviews. I'm saying that the evidence points to the existence of God, and that he revealed himself in Jesus.

    I would never say science isn't valid. I'm saying that I have a consistent basis from which I can trust it, ie. God has revealed the validity of the tenets of the scientific method. Yes, I have faith. But my faith works, whereas the naturalistic faith doesn't. That's the point. This is not about the evidence - we use the same evidence. This is about worldviews - the way we explain evidence.

    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.
    What you've done here is do what most atheists I know do when I make the point, which is to reflect the problem back to me or to relay their objections to the bible, rather than actually approach my point or attempt to refute it.

    Though my point still remains unresponded to, I will reply to the objection with 2 things:
    1) God is omnipotent, but he doesn't stop all evil. I think you are also pointing to the Christian idea that God is good/loving. However, you have not explained how it is true that God would not allow evil to exist if he is good/loving.

    Are you saying that it's wrong for anyone to suffer? Explain how that's true.
    And what about all the things we've all done that is evil? Are you saying a good god would have stopped us before we acted? Explain how that's true.
    Really, what you are saying is that God cannot be good and allow evil to exist because you would not allow evil to exist. But, with great respect, you aren't good. None of us are (this is why Jesus needed to die on the cross for mankind). You don't even meet your own moral standards perfectly, let alone a perfect God's standards. You also don't know everything. You aren't God - you don't define what is right or wrong.

    2) You say evil exists, but you steal from the biblical worldview to say that certain acts are evil. You need a moral law for evil to exist, not just your arbitrary, baseless opinion.

    This is what I mean by contradictory moral views. You respond emotionally to evil, yet, 1) believe that actions are the result of genes, the environment - ultimately, chance and the laws of physics and chemistry.
    2) believe that people are responsible for their actions and that justice should be applied, despite these ideas all being biblical, and outside of theism, cannot be true.
    and 3) you use a moral law to condemn the things in the bible, when you need a theistic basis for that moral law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jdizzle12345)
    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?
    I don't normally get defended by atheists on TSR. Thanks.

    (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.
    But the assumption isn't wrong, or at least, you haven't explained to me how it is so. Let us discuss just the assumptions I made then, huh? That would help me. I'd be very happy to simply discuss the assumptions, not even the conclusions.

    Let me jog your memory. I said to someone else, "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. "
    You said "No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation""

    But let's actually unpack that response. What is a rational explanation? What is your basis for rationality? And why is explaining things with the supernatural not rational?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Well, what I said is the conclusion of all those arguments

    No, it cannot.

    Forget supernatural then, just call it "this entity". Whatever you call it, doesn't matter.

    You don't say.

    And that effort is hugely based on them changing the story every time we learn something new.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I don't normally get defended by atheists on TSR. Thanks.



    But the assumption isn't wrong, or at least, you haven't explained to me how it is so. Let us discuss just the assumptions I made then, huh? That would help me. I'd be very happy to simply discuss the assumptions, not even the conclusions.

    Let me jog your memory. I said to someone else, "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. "
    You said "No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation""

    But let's actually unpack that response. What is a rational explanation? What is your basis for rationality? And why is explaining things with the supernatural not rational?
    It's an assumption. It's not on me to prove it wrong. It's on you to prove it correct.

    And the arrogance, you didn't get defended by an atheist, an atheist asked for more clarification in my argument, since the state it was in, he didn't understand it. If you continue to read our exchange you will see that we came to an agreement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    I don't normally get defended by atheists on TSR. Thanks.



    But the assumption isn't wrong, or at least, you haven't explained to me how it is so. Let us discuss just the assumptions I made then, huh? That would help me. I'd be very happy to simply discuss the assumptions, not even the conclusions.

    Let me jog your memory. I said to someone else, "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. "
    You said "No. That is not what he is implying at all. He is just saying "magic is not a rational explanation""

    But let's actually unpack that response. What is a rational explanation? What is your basis for rationality? And why is explaining things with the supernatural not rational?
    I think you're being too generous in your assumption that you're dealing with a rational debater.

    - dismisses philosophy
    - holds defunct philosophical views like verificationism
    - ??
    - profit
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Funny post, but in the end no better than that what is made fun of in the clip.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Funny post, but in the end no better than that what is made fun of in the clip.
    On a scale of 1 to 10, how euphoric are you feeling right now?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I think you're being too generous in your assumption that you're dealing with a rational debater.

    - dismisses philosophy
    - holds defunct philosophical views like verificationism
    - ??
    - profit
    I think you you're vastly overestimating your own capacities

    By any chance, what subject did you study at university?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    On a scale of 1 to 10, how euphoric are you feeling right now?
    6. Almost time for the weekend but not quite.

    On a scale of 1 to 10, how smug are you feeling right now?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    It's an assumption. It's not on me to prove it wrong. It's on you to prove it correct.

    And the arrogance, you didn't get defended by an atheist, an atheist asked for more clarification in my argument, since the state it was in, he didn't understand it. If you continue to read our exchange you will see that we came to an agreement.
    copout.
    this is a discussion - a debate. you are in the sub forum "debate and current affairs."

    in a debate both sides support their claims and provide evidence or support as to why the other side is incorrect. this also adds support to your claim.

    when ever someone makes a claim - positive or negative - they need to support their own claim. otherwise if you try to tell other people you are right and they are wrong, you just give an assumption. we all know what that does - look to Benny Hill if you don't.

    now there are many reasons why a person can not continue in a debate or conversation, but if let alone in a disrespectful way or at least deflecting way - hm...doesn't provide best support for your claim.

    Why should I believe or accept your assumption?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    I think you you're vastly overestimating your own capacities

    By any chance, what subject did you study at university?
    We'll let others be the judge of that

    The fact that you're asking that question tells me all I need to know about your comprehension skills.

    (Original post by inhuman)
    6. Almost time for the weekend but not quite.

    On a scale of 1 to 10, how smug are you feeling right now?
    I expected a higher number based on your complete inability to make a point but oh well.

    10, thanks to you!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    copout.
    this is a discussion - a debate. you are in the sub forum "debate and current affairs."

    in a debate both sides support their claims and provide evidence or support as to why the other side is incorrect. this also adds support to your claim.

    when ever someone makes a claim - positive or negative - they need to support their own claim. otherwise if you try to tell other people you are right and they are wrong, you just give an assumption. we all know what that does - look to Benny Hill if you don't.

    Why should I believe or accept your assumption?
    If his entire argument is based on that assumption, wouldn't you say it's pretty vital for him to show it's true?

    What if he deliberately chose an assumption that is impossible to disprove, or at least currently impossible? Then he will do exactly like you just did and say well listen mate there it is, look what I argued, you can't disprove it, so who is the fool now for denying it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    We'll let others be the judge of that

    The fact that you're asking that question tells me all I need to know about your comprehension skills.



    I expected a higher number based on your complete inability to make a point but oh well.

    10, thanks to you!
    It does tell you a lot about my comprehension skills, doesn't it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    There's no hard and fast evidence he doesn't exist...

    :iiam:
 
 
 
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.