Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Or because the people who wrote the book themselves had no clue? Yes, very much so. Thanks for proving me right. And yes, they thought that, but only because it fits into their God narrative. Ask 100 economists, one of them is likely to end up actually being correct.

    What about benevolence? What about even a shred of evidence that he cares about humans? All it says is that it created the universe. That is it. Everything else is make belief. And no, it would suggest a being exist. But 1. the argument is bs (read the link, it's a nice rebuttal, easy to understand) and 2. that being is not "God". You talk about properties? Well species of dogs share many properties and yet a poodle is not doberman...
    Yet you miss the point that the argument doesn't need to prove that it's the Abrahamic God in His entirety, all it aims to do is prove Theism. Frankly I'm surprised you're so hung up over this. The Abrahamic traditions are the only ones which hold that these are the properties of God, so that narrows it down a bit. But this isn't really a problem, and I respect a Muslim's beliefs more than an atheist's anyway. So feel free to convert.

    As for evidence that he cares about humans, I would refer you to the historical evidence of the Resurrection. Unless this account is dismantled (and it isn't particularly successful - and please don't link another random 'anti-apologetic' website, there are millions of these sorts of articles on each side of the debate and their existence really makes few odds), this suggests that Jesus really was the Christ. As such, God sent his only son to be sacrificed to save humanity, which suggests he cares about humans a great deal.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Please name one example of this. Evolution? Nope. St. Augustine was already teaching that Genesis and the passages relating to the creation of humanity were not to be taken literally, in the 4th century. That's a good 1500 years prior to Darwin. In other words, not a retreat caused by science.




    Every logical argument using science links the creator to God. Either you disprove the premises of the arguments or you accept that your point just shows your ingorance of the arguments in question.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand science and the scientific method. In science you start with no initial assumptions, then you make observations and see what conclusions those observations lead to, making sure that you're not biased on the way by looking for any specific result. God has never been a conclusion, nor will a God/goddess ever be a conclusion if science has so far taught us anything.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand science and the scientific method. In science you start with no initial assumptions, then you make observations and see what conclusions those observations lead to, making sure that you're not biased on the way by looking for any specific result. God has never been a conclusion, nor will a God/goddess ever be a conclusion if science has so far taught us anything.
    No, you misunderstandd my point. I wasn't saying God would ever be a scientific observation (I maintain that God is completely inaccessibly via the scientific method in this way - science neither can prove nor disprove God directly).

    My point was that philosophical arguments now use scientific evidence to back up the strength of the premises, thus leading logically to God. Science could never get us there directly.

    Though my own knowledge of philosophy of science is admittedly slight compared to the academics, I urge you to read more about philosophy of science. Bertrand Russell did lots of great work on it, for example, with the Problem of Induction (think turkey being fed before christmas). The point being that the scientifc method is not as straight-forward as you make out, not by a long shot.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    Yet you miss the point that the argument doesn't need to prove that it's the Abrahamic God in His entirety, all it aims to do is prove Theism. Frankly I'm surprised you're so hung up over this. The Abrahamic traditions are the only ones which hold that these are the properties of God, so that narrows it down a bit. But this isn't really a problem, and I respect a Muslim's beliefs more than an atheist's anyway. So feel free to convert.

    As for evidence that he cares about humans, I would refer you to the historical evidence of the Resurrection. Unless this account is dismantled (and it isn't particularly successful - and please don't link another random 'anti-apologetic' website, there are millions of these sorts of articles on each side of the debate and their existence really makes few odds), this suggests that Jesus really was the Christ. As such, God sent his only son to be sacrificed to save humanity, which suggests he cares about humans a great deal.
    You miss the point that that is exactly what needs to be proven. You devote your life to God. If in the end God doesn't give a **** about you, that entire devotion is pointless.

    And well stop linking WLC - the random nutter who is of no consequence in this world. And what evidence? Do tell, I am intrigued. I am willing to bet a large sum of money your evidence is just more circle jerk.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You miss the point that that is exactly what needs to be proven. You devote your life to God. If in the end God doesn't give a **** about you, that entire devotion is pointless.

    And well stop linking WLC - the random nutter who is of no consequence in this world. And what evidence? Do tell, I am intrigued. I am willing to bet a large sum of money your evidence is just more circle jerk.
    I don't devote my life to God, but it's good if people want to. You seem to imagine it's some sort of hardship, but having a basis for objective morality, value, purpose and truth is no hardship, and neither is knowing that God cares about you in particular, no matter how badly your life has gone, and that you will be forgiven if you are truly sorry, no matter how bad an act you commit. These are all wonderful things to believe, and the secular world has nothing to compare.

    As for the historiocity of the Resurrection:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...e-resurrection

    'It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.

    The three truths are:
    1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
    2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
    3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
    Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, even more significantly, that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three.'
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    I don't devote my life to God, but it's good if people want to. You seem to imagine it's some sort of hardship, but having a basis for objective morality, value, purpose and truth is no hardship, and neither is knowing that God cares about you in particular, no matter how badly your life has gone, and that you will be forgiven if you are truly sorry, no matter how bad an act you commit. These are all wonderful things to believe, and the secular world has nothing to compare.
    Unlike you I don't actually have a need to be forgiven by a fairy just so I can feel better about myself. I am not a child in need of mommy's reassurance.

    [QUOTE ]As for the historiocity of the Resurrection:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/...e-resurrection

    'It is worth pointing out that in establishing the historicity of the resurrection, we do not need to assume that the New Testament is inspired by God or even trustworthy. While I do believe these things, we are going to focus here on three truths that even critical scholars admit. In other words, these three truths are so strong that they are accepted by serious historians of all stripes. Therefore, any theory must be able to adequately account for these data.

    The three truths are:
    1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
    2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
    3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
    Virtually all scholars who deal with the resurrection, whatever their school of thought, assent to these three truths. We will see that the resurrection of Christ is the best explanation for each of them individually. But then we will see, even more significantly, that when these facts are taken together we have an even more powerful case for the resurrection--because the skeptic will not have to explain away just one historical fact, but three.'[/QUOTE]

    And I am sure these scholars that talk about "truths" about very detailed events 2000 years ago are totally right.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Unlike you I don't actually have a need to be forgiven by a fairy just so I can feel better about myself. I am not a child in need of mommy's reassurance

    This isn't me making these things up you know. Please consult the writings of Sartre and Camus. As I listed them, I'm surprised you seem to pick on forgiveness as being the only thing of which you are in no need. There are many other advantages of the theistic worldview, which I mentioned, which make it infinitely superior to barren atheistic ideology.

    (Original post by yudothis)
    And I am sure these scholars that talk about "truths" about very detailed events 2000 years ago are totally right.
    Well, they are academic experts who devote their lives to it. If anyone knows, it is they. Are you straying into your "well, better evidence may come at some point in the future so I'm not going to trust anything ever" routine again?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    No, you misunderstandd my point. I wasn't saying God would ever be a scientific observation (I maintain that God is completely inaccessibly via the scientific method in this way - science neither can prove nor disprove God directly).

    My point was that philosophical arguments now use scientific evidence to back up the strength of the premises, thus leading logically to God. Science could never get us there directly.

    Though my own knowledge of philosophy of science is admittedly slight compared to the academics, I urge you to read more about philosophy of science. Bertrand Russell did lots of great work on it, for example, with the Problem of Induction (think turkey being fed before christmas). The point being that the scientifc method is not as straight-forward as you make out, not by a long shot.
    I'm afraid you picked the wrong person to talk about Bertrand Russell to. Russell, Sagan and Feynman are essentially my life mentors and up-bringers. I would bet money that I've read more of his works than just about anyone on this forum😁

    Science is the tool we use to discover the nature of nature, we all use it to interact with the world around us, if something is inaccessible through science, then it is nothing at all, think the Russell's Teapot analogy and its implications for what I mean.

    Again, it's actually the other way around, science is used to strengthen logical arguments that the existence of God is not necessary to produce the world around us, that's literally why basically every real scientist doesn't believe in a God, doing so would show a complete disrespect for the scienctific method. From the instant of the Big Bang to the instant you're reading this comment, everything we have ever observed can be described exactly by the four fundamental forces of nature, even dark energy can be described by GR, a deity is not necessary if we use basic logic.

    The problem is that the scientific method literally is that simple, that's all there is to, watch Feynman describe it in 60 seconds online.

    Bertrand Russell knew everything that you and I know combined and more, he'd have thought through all of your arguments and all of my argument in his time. His conclusion was that he did not believe in God, his reasons and logic for that conclusion was abundant. The man was a genius, I am not trying to con you, the world as we know it points towards no god, read his works you'll understand why.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    This isn't me making these things up you know. Please consult the writings of Sartre and Camus. As I listed them, I'm surprised you seem to pick on forgiveness as being the only thing of which you are in no need. There are many other advantages of the theistic worldview, which I mentioned, which make it infinitely superior to barren atheistic ideology.



    Well, they are academic experts who devote their lives to it. If anyone knows, it is they. Are you straying into your "well, better evidence may come at some point in the future so I'm not going to trust anything ever" routine again?
    No, I am saying historians are not scientists...

    And I feel perfectly fine in my "barrern atheistic ideology".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    No, I am saying historians are not scientists...
    So now you're saying scientists know more about history than historians... RIGHT.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    I'm afraid you picked the wrong person to talk about Bertrand Russell to. Russell, Sagan and Feynman are essentially my life mentors and up-bringers. I would bet money that I've read more of his works than just about anyone on this forum😁

    Science is the tool we use to discover the nature of nature, we all use it to interact with the world around us, if something is inaccessible through science, then it is nothing at all, think the Russell's Teapot analogy and its implications for what I mean.

    Again, it's actually the other way around, science is used to strengthen logical arguments that the existence of God is not necessary to produce the world around us, that's literally why basically every real scientist doesn't believe in a God, doing so would show a complete disrespect for the scienctific method. From the instant of the Big Bang to the instant you're reading this comment, everything we have ever observed can be described exactly by the four fundamental forces of nature, even dark energy can be described by GR, a deity is not necessary if we use basic logic.

    The problem is that the scientific method literally is that simple, that's all there is to, watch Feynman describe it in 60 seconds online.

    Bertrand Russell knew everything that you and I know combined and more, he'd have thought through all of your arguments and all of my argument in his time. His conclusion was that he did not believe in God, his reasons and logic for that conclusion was abundant. The man was a genius, I am not trying to con you, the world as we know it points towards no god, read his works you'll understand why.
    The problem with the teapot analogy in this discussion is that the question we're considering is not about the burden of proof in science. If God's existence were a scientific hypothesis, then, yes, the burden of proof would indeed be with the theist, a burden he would indeed falter under. However, there is a perfectly good reason for this: God cannot be accessed by the scientific method, and therefore scientific discovery in the universe is irrelevant as to his existence: science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, so no one can ever have the burden of scientific proof, it is meaningless. For a good illustration of this, look up John Lennox's Ford analogy, the gist is: 'We can use natural laws of chemistry and physics to understand how an engine works, for instance, but to then conclude that this means the engine originated by impersonal natural laws, or that the plans and purposes of its designer are unimportant, is a confusion of categories.' http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
    I was trying to find the original version but I'm struggling.

    God's existence can only be accessed via Philosophy and Theology, therefore, with the help of physics to assess the validity of particular premises.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    In simple terms, it was probably a result of a random chance action(BBT) and not God. however, if others are adamant to say that it is God than let me say that it could be any God, entity, etc. Why do people always point to the abrahamic God? it really annoys me

    Also if you have time, you should read this transcript. A really interesting debate on the existence of God, featuring none other than Russell himself, makes a lot of good points i couldn't eloquently do justice to.
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: pdf AH Philosophy of Religion Copleston Russell Radio Transcript.pdf (107.6 KB, 58 views)
  2. File Type: pdf AH Philosophy of Religion Copleston Russell Radio Transcript.pdf (107.6 KB, 37 views)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    The problem with the teapot analogy in this discussion is that the question we're considering is not about the burden of proof in science. If God's existence were a scientific hypothesis, then, yes, the burden of proof would indeed be with the theist, a burden he would indeed falter under. However, there is a perfectly good reason for this: God cannot be accessed by the scientific method, and therefore scientific discovery in the universe is irrelevant as to his existence: science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, so no one can ever have the burden of scientific proof, it is meaningless. For a good illustration of this, look up John Lennox's Ford analogy, the gist is: 'We can use natural laws of chemistry and physics to understand how an engine works, for instance, but to then conclude that this means the engine originated by impersonal natural laws, or that the plans and purposes of its designer are unimportant, is a confusion of categories.' http://creation.com/review-lennox-gods-undertaker
    I was trying to find the original version but I'm struggling.

    God's existence can only be accessed via Philosophy and Theology, therefore, with the help of physics to assess the validity of particular premises.
    Okay okay now we're getting somewhere.

    So the real questions of interest to you are: Why are the four fundamental forces the way they are? How did the universe come about? Why are the physical constants the values that they are?

    Those three questions are the meeting of physics and philosophy. The most fundamental question in physics is: What is the Theory of Everything, and then philosophy asks why this is the case. If we know the answer to any of those questions then we can decisively say whether there is a God or not by the definition of the question. The scientific method cannot answer such questions, however, theoretical physics and mathematics might. If string theory continues to develop and develop, we may one day uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe through it. It may answer those three questions. However, by Gödel's incompleteness theorem this may not be possible. The beauty of physics and all of science is that it is actively looking for the answers, that's why it is so fascinating.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    It does, and the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by God Himself and that's why it's true


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nah
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josie_7)
    It does, and the Bible is the Word of God, inspired by God Himself and that's why it's true


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Torah and Koran say the same. Basic logic invalidates cyclical arguments. So the argument that God is real and the bible is true because the other says so is invalid by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Self-consistency only arises in inconsistent systems.

    Not that you probably have a clue what I'm talking about it, but basically that argument is invalid, and it's been mathematically proved to be invalid.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RomeoSantos)
    quite a lot tbh. Our ancestors used to be apes can you believe it? Amazing.

    That response shows me you have believed in what you have been told by people like Brian Cox (and maybe your teachers at school.....)


    What evidence is there for you, that you have researched that is concrete.

    Try and persuade me to believe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeyTr)
    The Torah and Koran say the same. Basic logic invalidates cyclical arguments. So the argument that God is real and the bible is true because the other says so is invalid by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Self-consistency only arises in inconsistent systems.

    Not that you probably have a clue what I'm talking about it, but basically that argument is invalid, and it's been mathematically proved to be invalid.

    Your spirit doesn't connect with mathematical logic.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Unlike you I don't actually have a need to be forgiven by a fairy just so I can feel better about myself.
    Demonstrably, not all atheists agree:

    "Am I the only one gets extremely worried about death when I think about it? It's probably the most scary concept out there. The thought of losing all your knowledge, relationships, memories and conscience was enough to give me a heart palpitation. Kinda makes me wish I could believe in religion, just for the comfort aspect." - GradeA*UnderA

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4299834
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    That response shows me you have believed in what you have been told by people like Brian Cox (and maybe your teachers at school.....)


    What evidence is there for you, that you have researched that is concrete.

    Try and persuade me to believe.
    Nah there's quite a lot of scientifical evidence. Google it if you want. More evidence for evolution than there is of there being a God anyway. But I respect your opinion, we're all just going to die and be food for the worms any way.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    Your spirit doesn't connect with mathematical logic.
    What's a spirit? You mean consciousness in neuroscience? Computers will soon be conscious and they're pure mathematical logic. Mathematical logic dictates all things, including life. Life arises from the steady operation of evolution through the four fundamental forces of physics, nothing mystic or spiritual involved. Hence your word "spirit" and mathematical logic are actually one and the same.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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.

Updated: September 12, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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