A question for atheists and agnostics

[Skaloop]

Well, you have a right not to believe, but the existence of God is far more valid an argument than that for the existence of mother goose.

Validity is not the issue. It's an analogy. You don't believe in Mother Goose. Why not? The reasons you would provide are likely similar to the reasons I would provide for not believing in God. And how much validity does something need in order to qualify for comparison to your God? Why don't you believe in Vishnu? Why don't you believe in the Muslim God? They are just as valid deity constructs as yours.

Unless you mean because you can't hear/see/touch/taste/smell God?

No. It's not that I can't hear/see/touch/taste/smell God himself, it's that I can't hear/see/touch/taste/smell any evidence of him or his actions whatsoever.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Validity is not the issue. It's an analogy. You don't believe in Mother Goose. Why not? The reasons you would provide are likely similar to the reasons I would provide for not believing in God. And how much validity does something need in order to qualify for comparison to your God? Why don't you believe in Vishnu? Why don't you believe in the Muslim God? They are just as valid deity constructs as yours.

I think that's his point: he believes that his deity has more supporting evidence/rationale than those of other religions. I, for one, am intrigued... .

 

[Atheista]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

That is the default position. I will hold it until someone provides compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

...
Again, although there is much evidence for God, there is nothing empirical, because that would eliminate the free will involved in believing. There is also nothing empirically against God, so God is not an unreasonable conclusion.
.....

How would it remove free will. Its clear that even with evidence for things *such as evolution* people will still believe what they want. And being fully informed does not take away free will. Not even if god cared about free will which it seems not to be mentioned at all in the bible. However god did seem to enjoy removing the free will of the pharoh.

 

[Wyzaard]

Well, if the Uncaused Cause didn't want to cause what It did, it wouldn't have.

Unless 'causing' was simply what it was capable of doing; an open, potent possibility. No will is required... and even if we were to posit one, where did it comes from? Why does it 'want' at all? Why does it want one creative possibility rather than another? Why...

It would simply exist, unmoving, unchanging, for all eternity.

Wasn't it content? This inborn purpose seems to imply the presence of a META-god... but what then, an infinite regress of META-gods?

It had to have at least some measure of will to cause, because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off, which It would not do by accident. There would be no accidents.

Why not? You need to be more explicit here.

 

[Wyzaard]

Well, you have a right not to believe, but the existence of God is far more valid an argument than that for the existence of mother goose.

Ummm... mother goose at the very least has a remote possibility of being shown to exist. How would one go about using empirical evidence and bounded logical systems to verify the absolute existence of a metaphysical being laying beyond the bounds of physicality and conventional comprehention?

Where is the justified correspondence between epistemological confirmation and metaphysical Truth?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

That's into the nature of the Uncaused Cause, I said something about it earlier.
But most basically, it has to be purposeful, as a start.

why must it be purposeful? does cold have to be purposeful to cause ice to form?

No i see no reason why a uncaused cause must have a purposeful start. I find it much simpler for an uncaused cause to have a simple purposeless start.
a pebble starting an avalanche. WHy must it have be purposeful.?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Well, if the Uncaused Cause didn't want to cause what It did, it wouldn't have. It would simply exist, unmoving, unchanging, for all eternity. It had to have at least some measure of will to cause, because there is nothing else but It in the beginning. Nothing to set it off, It had to set everything else off, which It would not do by accident. There would be no accidents.

does cold desire to freeze? Or perhaps just a simple internal reaction caused more to happen.

And why cant it happen by "accident"?

 

[Nihilismus]

I love how creationists argue for causality and free will at the same time.

doublethink doubleplusgood

 

[ranmaonehalf]

....


If it had no reason to cause, with nothing to react or combine with, there would simply be a potential Cause for all eternity, and we can see there is not just that.

but if you allow for multiple uncaused things then your fine.
of course you could even allow for a complex uncaused thing too

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Again, although there is much evidence for God, there is nothing empirical, because that would eliminate the free will involved in believing. There is also nothing empirically against God, so God is not an unreasonable conclusion.

There is absolutely zero evidence for any god or omnipotent being.

 

[MaxP]

There is absolutely zero evidence for any god or omnipotent being.

I would have to refer you to the last few dozen pages of this thread about that.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I would have to refer you to the last few dozen pages of this thread about that.

Show me a single piece of evidence other than circular reasoning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would have to refer you to the last few dozen pages of this thread about that.

None of which have the evidence you mention. But by all means, specify the precise post.

 

[MaxP]

Blah, blah, blah cosmological argument, five ways.

 

[Aianna]

Blah, blah, blah cosmological argument, five ways.

As many ways as you want to state the cosmological argument, it doesn't constitute any sort of evidence.

Even assuming that there is a "first cause" you can't get anything more from that assumption than it's the "first cause." You're just replacing one unknown with another, arbitrarily redefining it as "God" and claiming to know anything about its nature.

However the assumption that everything needs a first cause may not even be accurate. Radioactive decay and virtual particles created in vacuum are examples of an uncaused causes (I do admit however, this is based on my limited knowledge).

What if the "first cause" *was* just something similar to virtual particles coming out of vacuum? Is something like that really worthy of deifying?

 

[MaxP]

As many ways as you want to state the cosmological argument, it doesn't constitute any sort of evidence.

Even assuming that there is a "first cause" you can't get anything more from that assumption than it's the "first cause." You're just replacing one unknown with another, arbitrarily redefining it as "God" and claiming to know anything about its nature.

blah blah blah about page 11 or 12, I believe.

However the assumption that everything needs a first cause may not even be accurate. Radioactive decay and virtual particles created in vacuum are examples of an uncaused causes (I do admit however, this is based on my limited knowledge).

What if the "first cause" *was* just something similar to virtual particles coming out of vacuum? Is something like that really worthy of deifying?

blah blah blah, apparently causeless but not from nothing, dependent upon existence(somewhere in the 20's)

 

[Aianna]

blah blah blah about page 11 or 12, I believe.


blah blah blah, apparently causeless but not from nothing, dependent upon existence(somewhere in the 20's)

Well, my board settings are set to display 40 posts per page so that *should* be page 3 and 5-8, right? Well quickly rereading a bit the three posts of yours that stood out as relevant were posts #122, #136, and #171 in the thread.

Post #122 doesn't need much argument as you say yourself:

there is nothing empirical

There is also nothing empirically against God, so God is not an unreasonable conclusion.

However doesn't quite work. There's nothing empirically against a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but nobody's going to believe that one exists without hard evidence. Belief in the absence of evidence isn't justified because there's *also* no evidence to the contrary. There's no evidence either way specifically because this concept of god is an unfalsifiable one.

Onto post #136.

First, the perfect logically precedes the imperfect.

Actually, the complete opposite would be true. Whatever came "first" would have to be incredibly simple; if a complex intelligent being would have to have gotten there somehow. This is really just a lot of assertions and the word "perfect" is used way too often. I can't think of anything "perfect" in this universe.

And post #171.

Yes... I didn't realize it, but I suppose even if one could prove something could come into existence with no physical stimulae, it wouldn't prove something could come into existence based on nothing, would it?
Hence origin being in the realm of philosophy.

I disagree with the last part of this quote. Philosophy is wonderful for fields like ethics, but I think this is a question for empirical science. I feel that way because philosophy tends to assume a conclusion and work backwards to provide evidence for that conclusion and when something has a definite answer, that type of reasoning isn't nearly as effective as drawing the conclusion from the evidence.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Alright, I got a theory for you, time is cyclical. Put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it. Something didn't come out of nothing because there never was nothing, and there will never be nothing. There was always something. No G-d required. I don't necessarily believe in this theory, and nobody else has to, but just don't act like the existence of G-d is the only rational answer.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

blah blah blah about page 11 or 12, I believe.


blah blah blah, apparently causeless but not from nothing, dependent upon existence(somewhere in the 20's)

And you are being deliberately obtuse since other than your causation circular reasoning argument you come up with nothing to substantiate your assertions.