Argument for God's existence.

[bhsmte]

I'm sorry, Silmarien, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this! Don't people change their beliefs when new evidence arises? For a long time, for example, people thought that fossils were animal remains from the Great flood, and that the Earth was six thousand years old. Some still do, of course, but plenty of people looked at the evidence and readjusted their views to account for new evidence. Then there's the germ theory of disease, the Big Bang itself, and on, and on.
If there really was evidence that the Christian story was true, I would consider it; and if it was sufficiently reliable, I would be converted. It really is as simple as that.

Simple and intellectually honest, but too painful for some to acknowledge.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds very sensible of you, philo. Perhaps more so than me.

And of course! What Church of the Flying Teapot would be complete without tea and crumpets?

I do so love tea, particularly Mango Green Tea...but I'm not much for the crumpets. So, I don't know how quickly I shall be joining the Teapot Church, and I may have to think about the deeper contexts of doing so ...

 

[Silmarien]

I'm sorry, Silmarien, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this! Don't people change their beliefs when new evidence arises? For a long time, for example, people thought that fossils were animal remains from the Great flood, and that the Earth was six thousand years old. Some still do, of course, but plenty of people looked at the evidence and readjusted their views to account for new evidence. Then there's the germ theory of disease, the Big Bang itself, and on, and on.
If there really was evidence that the Christian story was true, I would consider it; and if it was sufficiently reliable, I would be converted. It really is as simple as that.

Actually, I would say that they don't. If you actually look at the huge, huge intellectual revolutions in history, particularly the Copernican Revolution but also the more recent controversy over evolution (which of course includes issues like dinosaur fossils), what we absolutely don't see is a simple shift in beliefs. When a well-established worldview starts to founder, the result is actually extremely messy as people kind of mix old and new ways of thinking. (Consider someone like Descartes, who embraced radical skepticism while still defending the Catholic faith.)

There are beliefs that are impossible for those of us who descend from the rationalist tradition. I would count a literal reading of Genesis among those, and even if evidence suddenly surfaced that the universe was only 6000 years old and Adam and Eve existed, I'd have real trouble accepting it, since it just doesn't fit within the whole network of beliefs that I have, and for reasons that go beyond scientific evidence. We're not perfectly rational--there are always emotional factors in play as well.

I'm not a Christian apologist, by the way. I generally accept Pascal's Wager, but in this section of the forum I mostly just identify as a classical theist, so I'm usually not talking specifically about the Christian story when I mention worldviews.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

yes, but it does absolutely nothing to answer the original question of the philosophy of athiesm.

My atheism isn’t a philosophy.

Not to mention moving the goal posts, which is it's own fallacy.

That’s not even remotely true. It’s like you’re just randomly typing the names of logical fallacies in the hopes that people will take you seriously.

But if it does not answer the basic question of if there is a God or not, why bother? Why focus your whole life's energy on a question mark? Sounds pretty lonely.

I doubt any atheist focuses their whole life’s energy on whether or not a god exists...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

My atheism isn’t a philosophy.



That’s not even remotely true. It’s like you’re just randomly typing the names of logical fallacies in the hopes that people will take you seriously.


I doubt any atheist focuses their whole life’s energy on whether or not a god exists...

I understand that the Ninth Commandment enjoins Christians to tell the truth, to not speak in misleading ways, and to correct themselves when they have been shown to be in error.

Perhaps it doesn't apply if you're trying to prove God's existence?

Or maybe @gradyll would like to reread the last score or so of pages to see where the views which he keeps insisting on posting have been refuted; and then, in a spirit of Christian humility, to admit his mistakes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes, but my question was "Have you observed this "Cause but not an effect" for yourself? Or, point to anything observably uncaused?" You answered with "dark matter"

No, I have not observed this cause, but I have observed His effects. And no I can not point to anything in this universe that is uncaused, but my point is that something can LOGICALLY be a cause without being an effect.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I understand that the Ninth Commandment enjoins Christians to tell the truth, to not speak in misleading ways, and to correct themselves when they have been shown to be in error.

Perhaps it doesn't apply if you're trying to prove God's existence?

Or maybe @gradyll would like to reread the last score or so of pages to see where the views which he keeps insisting on posting have been refuted; and then, in a spirit of Christian humility, to admit his mistakes.

The percentage of dishonest Christians I’ve met in my life is much greater than the percentage of dishonest atheists.

That may just be me of course, but I’ve always found it odd.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is a law of logic, like the law of non-contradiction. Read any good book on Aristotle to learn more.

So I looked into Aristotle's four causes. You're saying the universe is the Final Cause, God is the Efficient Cause, and the laws of physics are probably the Formal Cause. What's the Material Cause?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not entirely accurate though. There's a difference between not believing in something, and knowing that something isn't true. For example I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't claim to know it. Same with god(s), in my case. I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not claiming to know there is no god. That's why I think it's most accurate to say I'm both an atheist and an agnostic.As far as I can understand, the problem of evil is a problem because God is supposedly both good and omnipotent. It's hard to fit all the world's suffering into that view.

well my point is that you don't believe in God personally, and have publicly claimed that, as an atheist. Granted you say you cannot prove that. And that is ok. But for my understanding, atheism originally was just that, a claim that there was no God. And they claimed it publicly and defended it publicly because of the fact there is evil in the world. But just so you know. If you are convinced there is no God, you are not agnostic. An agnostic believes that they don not know if there is no God. Which is a useless perspective. Say I asked a question "is there santa claus? And if there is no santa claus, there is no gifts."

and I separated you into three groups, those who believe, those who do not, and those who don't know.

as far as relaying truth to the world about the christmas story, how meaningful is the group that says "we don't know"?

Now it's different from saying, I believe such and such, but can't prove it. It is actually officially saying that not only is knowing impossible at this time, I personally don't have an opinion on the matter.

So again, as far as knowledge of christmas tradition and christmas spirit goes, how important to the discussion is the guy in the back that says, I can't prove it and I don't want to try?

That is all I am saying, agnostics relay no truth, agnostics have no substance.

and atheists have substance but their substance is in theism.

see if theism didn't exist in the world, there would be no atheists, so atheist owe their entire existence to the fact that people currently believe in God, if we didn't believe, you would have no relevance at all in this world. So your very welcome.

 

[createdtoworship]

The percentage of dishonest Christians I’ve met in my life is much greater than the percentage of dishonest atheists.

That may just be me of course, but I’ve always found it odd.

well you have called me a liar many times, even though that is impossible to tell. I mean how can you prove someone is lying to you, they can contradict and simply be recollecting the account wrong, that is not lying. They could be misquoting a scholarly article, that is not lying. They could be honestly and sincerely wrong, but not lying. So sorry if your statement doesn't hold water with me. As you have actually accused me falsely regarding honesty many times.

 

[createdtoworship]

My atheism isn’t a philosophy.

this is a red herring fallacy, I never said atheism was a philosophy, I said it had a philosophy.

That’s not even remotely true. It’s like you’re just randomly typing the names of logical fallacies in the hopes that people will take you seriously.

normally when I am accused of a fallacy, I analyze the statement to see if it is true, on the other hand your tactic is to use another fallacy, an ad hominenem attack fallacy, and would lose all cultural relevance.

I doubt any atheist focuses their whole life’s energy on whether or not a god exists...

atheists don't have an identity of their own, but live as the negation of thing else. Living as a parasite of sorts only to attack and live on someone else's life. They leach onto religion for their identity, even though they hate religion. Without religion they would have absolutely no power at all.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@gradyll , thank you for confirming that you have either not read or not understood the arguments presented here. In doing so, you've provided a fitting finale to the thread without realising it. You don't understand what atheism or agnosticism mean, but you are happy to lecture other people about them. Now that everyone has corrected you and seen you be corrected multiple times, every time you say anything about atheism or agnosticism you just underline how thoroughly you are missing the point.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

well you have called me a liar many times, even though that is impossible to tell. I mean how can you prove someone is lying to you, they can contradict and simply be recollecting the account wrong, that is not lying. They could be misquoting a scholarly article, that is not lying. They could be honestly and sincerely wrong, but not lying. So sorry if your statement doesn't hold water with me. As you have actually accused me falsely regarding honesty many times.

If you can point to a post where I've specifically said you were lying, please do so.

I have mentioned that you're seemingly acting dishonestly, which is the truth. I'm sure others here will back me up on that. It's been pointed out many times by many people. At some point, the logical person will go "hey, maybe it actually is me".

And whether or not my statement holds water with you is immaterial.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@gradyll your label says "logical debater, for better or for worse." Isn't it time you showed us what that means? Is everybody who disagrees with you hopelessly wrong, or is there anything anyone's said which would cause a truly logical debater to say, "You know, I never thought of it like that before. Maybe I need to reconsider some of my positions."

 

[ananda]

No, I have not observed this cause, but I have observed His effects. And no I can not point to anything in this universe that is uncaused, but my point is that something can LOGICALLY be a cause without being an effect.

Logic <> direct observation.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

this is a red herring fallacy, I never said atheism was a philosophy, I said it had a philosophy.

My atheism doesn't have a philosophy either...

normally when I am accused of a fallacy, I analyze the statement to see if it is true, on the other hand your tactic is to use another fallacy, an ad hominenem attack fallacy, and would lose all cultural relevance.

That was not an ad hominem fallacy, as it wasn't an argument. It would be a good idea to learn when logical fallacies can happen.

atheists don't have an identity of their own, but live as the negation of thing else. Living as a parasite of sorts only to attack and live on someone else's life. They leach onto religion for their identity, even though they hate religion. Without religion they would have absolutely no power at all.

Absolutely none of that is true. In addition, you seem to be getting very emotional about this. I find that people have a hard time being logical when they're very emotional.

 

[Silmarien]

atheists don't have an identity of their own, but live as the negation of thing else. Living as a parasite of sorts only to attack and live on someone else's life. They leach onto religion for their identity, even though they hate religion. Without religion they would have absolutely no power at all.

Have you ever actually met an atheist? There are admittedly at least a couple people on this forum who give this impression, but it's pretty rare in real life.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you can point to a post where I've specifically said you were lying, please do so.

Oh, I did. After something has been repeatedly, explicitly stated, and a person claims the opposite of that was explicitly stated, and even after that has been corrected the person doesn't acknowledge that what they said was false, that's proof enough of a lie.

I'm sick of pretending people just made a mistake when it's clear that they knew better. If folks don't want to be called out for lying, then they ought to care a lot more, and work a lot harder to ensure that what they say is actually true.

 

[holo]

well my point is that you don't believe in God personally, and have publicly claimed that, as an atheist. Granted you say you cannot prove that. And that is ok. But for my understanding, atheism originally was just that, a claim that there was no God. And they claimed it publicly and defended it publicly because of the fact there is evil in the world. But just so you know. If you are convinced there is no God, you are not agnostic. An agnostic believes that they don not know if there is no God. Which is a useless perspective. Say I asked a question "is there santa claus? And if there is no santa claus, there is no gifts."

I'm an agnostic because I don't claim to know there is no god(s). I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god(s). It's no more complicated than that.

as far as relaying truth to the world about the christmas story, how meaningful is the group that says "we don't know"?

Saying I'm an agnostic is just a statement of fact, not an attempt to be meaningful.

and atheists have substance but their substance is in theism.

see if theism didn't exist in the world, there would be no atheists

That sentence doesn't make any more sense than saying if atheism didn't exist in the world, there would be no theists.

so atheist owe their entire existence to the fact that people currently believe in God, if we didn't believe, you would have no relevance at all in this world. So your very welcome.

What do you mean "owe their existence"? The fact that there's a term for it, rooted in the word "theism"? I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm an agnostic because I don't claim to know there is no god(s). I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god(s). It's no more complicated than that.Saying I'm an agnostic is just a statement of fact, not an attempt to be meaningful.That sentence doesn't make any more sense than saying if atheism didn't exist in the world, there would be no theists.What do you mean "owe their existence"? The fact that there's a term for it, rooted in the word "theism"? I don't get what you're trying to say.

atheists don't have an identity of their own, but live as the negation of some thing else. Living as a parasite of sorts only to attack and live on someone else's life. They leach onto religion for their identity, even though they hate religion. Without religion they would have absolutely no power at all. So the thing they hate the most, is crucial for their survival and without it they would have no relevance at all.

I mean a simple google search shows hundreds of cases of scholarly works on the merits and morals of forgiveness:
Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development