There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Really? Please do tell us what they are.
    Book length treatments by people like Swinburne, Alston, Plantinga etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Regardless of what you think of those arguments, those are not the only arguments, his case for God is a cumulative case. Plantinga has also made significant contributions to philosophy such as the free will defence and riviving the ontological argument. The names I listed as well as others are very strong theists, not to say ther aren't strong opponents though but each recognising the others significance
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benandjerry)
    Regardless of what you think of those arguments, those are not the only arguments, his case for God is a cumulative case. Plantinga has also made significant contributions to philosophy such as the free will defence and riviving the ontological argument. The names I listed as well as others are very strong theists, not to say ther aren't strong opponents though but each recognising the others significance
    The ontological argument has no credibility. It has been exploded, probably in this very thread, countless times on TSR.

    When you say the case is cumulative, I presume you mean they have made many wrong-headed philosophical and pseudo-scientific arguments, all of which have been destroyed by people of sense, bu that they keep being trotted out in case they come across someone who can be fooled.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The ontological argument has no credibility. It has been exploded, probably in this very thread, countless times on TSR.

    When you say the case is cumulative, I presume you mean they have made many wrong-headed philosophical and pseudo-scientific arguments, all of which have been destroyed by people of sense, bu that they keep being trotted out in case they come across someone who can be fooled.
    It is taken seriously by philosophers, even if it's false. And that is a chareceture of these philosophers, even if you don't agree with them you should at least recognise their significance as swinburne, alston, plantinga, Adams etc are among the best philosophers of religion of the last century, even including atheist philosophers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    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.



    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...
    To define God outside of reality is to beg the question against God as it entails his non- existence lol. Outside of physical reality yes, but that doesn't mean that evidence can't be given for and against, eg problem of evil, cosmological argument etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benandjerry)
    It is taken seriously by philosophers, even if it's false. And that is a chareceture of these philosophers, even if you don't agree with them you should at least recognise their significance as swinburne, alston, plantinga, Adams etc are among the best philosophers of religion of the last century, even including atheist philosophers.
    Anyone who takes seriously a point of view that is so obviously wrong deserves no credit for those views. If they are the best then the humdrum must be a poor lot, so none of them encourage me to think philosophy deserves the kudos it attracts among its participants.

    The proposals we have mentioned are just examples of shoddy thinking. That philosophers take those theories seriously says more about the philosophers that do so than it does about the existence of gods.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Anyone who takes seriously a point of view that is so obviously wrong deserves no credit for those views. If they are the best then the humdrum must be a poor lot, so none of them encourage me to think philosophy deserves the kudos it attracts among its participants.

    The proposals we have mentioned are just examples of shoddy thinking. That philosophers take those theories seriously says more about the philosophers that do so than it does about the existence of gods.
    Okay so the whole of philosophy of religion composed of highly reputable professional philosophers both theists and atheists at elite universities is all just undermined by TSR posters? I think you should read scholarly arguments for theism and atheism (Rowe, mackie, oppy, sobel) and see just how much they contrast with the arguments seen online and YouTube.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benandjerry)
    To define God outside of reality is to beg the question against God as it entails his non- existence lol. Outside of physical reality yes, but that doesn't mean that evidence can't be given for and against, eg problem of evil, cosmological argument etc
    I wouldn't call those evidence, most are more hypotheses, really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    I wouldn't call those evidence, most are more hypotheses, really.
    Well the hypotheses would be theism, and the arguments, evidence, that either increase or decrease the probability of hypothesis (theism)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benandjerry)
    Okay so the whole of philosophy of religion composed of highly reputable professional philosophers both theists and atheists at elite universities is all just undermined by TSR posters?
    That is not what I said. The arguments mentioned have been exploded EVEN here. Obviously other philosophers have destroyed them too.

    Are you defending the ontological argument, Swinburne's principles and intelligent design? Are do you accept they are somewhat silly and easily argued against?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    there is no evidence that god does not exist.
    Yes there is.

    I applied twice for the Steven Hawking talk at Imperial through the ballot, and didn't win a ticket.

    Explain that. :smug:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    Yes there is.

    I applied twice for the Steven Hawking talk at Imperial through the ballot, and didn't win a ticket.

    Explain that. :smug:
    Special snowflake syndrome.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That is not what I said. The arguments mentioned have been exploded EVEN here. Obviously other philosophers have destroyed them too.

    Are you defending the ontological argument, Swinburne's principles and intelligent design? Are do you accept they are somewhat silly and easily argued against?
    I'm no defender of the ontological argument, but I haven't seen anyone get anywhere near to refuting the argument on this site! This 'explosions' tend to be shallow replies the likes of which you see in Dawkins' books. The ontological argument isn't convincing, but not because the local tsr atheists have said anything of note.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by longshot100)
    Special snowflake syndrome.
    No chill.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonzrmetal)
    No chill.
    I'll take that as a compliment
 
 
 
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.

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.