Does God exist?

[quatona]

Does God exist?

What do you mean - "God"??

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is not enough evidence to convict a god of existence, so no god.

There isn't enough evidence to really make a conclusion either way, so we don't know.

 

[bhsmte]

There isn't enough evidence to really make a conclusion either way, so we don't know.

Would that position not make you agnostic then?

 

[DennisTate]

Ergo, if a god exists and does nothing about evil then he is evil.

Or……… we humans have a role to play in the process that turns the earth into a utopia?!


……

The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me. My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology.

The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all. What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world.

And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition.

There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect. If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.

What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables.

People, in unison, could control the climate of the planet through prayer. Everybody would work with mutual trust and the people would call the rain, when needed, and the sun to shine.

Animals lived with people, in harmony.

People, in this best of all worlds, weren't interested in knowledge; they were interested in wisdom. This was because they were in a position where anything they needed to know, in the knowledge category, they could receive simply through prayer. Everything, to them, was solvable. They could do anything they wanted to do." (Howard Storm, near-death.com)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Would that position not make you agnostic then?

Agnostic atheist.

 

[bhsmte]

Agnostic atheist.

Ok, but if you say you don't know either way, why not just agnostic, because atheist would mean you have a position you believe a God does not exist?

 

[bhsmte]

Agnostic atheist.

Forget it, I get it now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok, but if you say you don't know either way, why not just agnostic, because atheist would mean you have a position you believe a God does not exist?

*sigh* I don't claim that I know whether or not gods exist (hence agnostic) however I personally don't think they do (hence atheist). Agnostic is the knowledge statement, atheist is the belief statement.

 

[HitchSlap]

There isn't enough evidence to really make a conclusion either way, so we don't know.

Really? Lack of evidence for a god leads you to conclude there's a god?

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm assuming you mean "god", not "good."

No, I meant good. Is this "God" you're referring to good by human standards or evil?

People have different standards for good and evil. I think it's inconclusive as to the attributes of the creator. For our sakes, I hope the creator is benevolent and that it shares our concern for conscious creatures.

Well, I would think that it's obvious that any Creator who would allow a small child to go to a Nazi death camp to have experiments run on him by Dr. Joseph Mengele is evil by human standards. That's the point I was trying to make: God is a moral monster to natural man and natural man is a moral monster to God. The Bible makes the same point many times:

" 8 And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which [f]mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead [g]bodies for three and a half days, and [h]will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. 10 And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth." Rev. 11:8-10 (NASB)

 

[Achilles6129]

Between the cosmological argument, the precise laws of physics required for a sustainable universe, and the likelihood of the simulation theory... I say the meter swings in the direction of a Creator. Just not an Iron Age, Canaanite war god mixed with the cheif god of the pantheon (Yahweh/El).

YHWH is not a Canaanite war god. His origins are strictly Hebrew: you need to read the Old Testament if you believe otherwise.

 

[Achilles6129]

There is no good evidence for God.

According to...who...?

On the other hand, there is much suffering, and no clear sign of God.

Yes, we talked about this at great length on another thread (which sadly got taken down by the mods for violating forum rules). I assume you remember the conversation.

(The universe could have occurred naturally, and the laws of nature could be necessary, or the universe could be part of a multiverse).

Do you agree that time must have had a beginning?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Would that position not make you agnostic then?

All atheists are agnostics my friend, unless you want to claim you KNOW that God does not exist.

If you are the latter, I would love to see your argument(s).

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Really? Lack of evidence for a god leads you to conclude there's a god?

What is it about "we DON'T KNOW." did you not get?

She never claimed God existed. SHE SAID SHE DID NOT KNOW.

 

[Achilles6129]

My favorite part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HthQ6a7FZeA

So it seems Harris' main argument is that people suffer unjustifiably so God doesn't exist. But God will one day intervene to end all evil and to rectify all unjustified suffering. That fact is what atheistic philosophers forget when they talk about the problem of evil.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If you want to ask me my opinions on some arguments, I'll happily answer them them though.

What is your position regarding the following:

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object-directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation, or I can think of my wife. No physical object has intentionality in this sense. A chair or a stone or a glob of tissue like the brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states or states of consciousness are about other things. In The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions (2011), the materialist Alex Rosenberg recognizes this fact, and concludes that for atheists, there really are no intentional states. Rosenberg boldly claims that we never really think about anything. But this seems incredible. Obviously, I am thinking about Rosenberg’s argument – and so are you! This seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of his atheism. By contrast, for theists, because God is a mind, it’s hardly surprising that there should be other, finite minds, with intentional states. Thus intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic worldview.

So we may argue:

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.

2. But intentional states of consciousness do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Does God Exist? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now

It makes a loving God who wants a relationship with us seem less likely.

Why?

There is no conclusive argument or evidence to tell us what the origin of the universe is, so we don't know.

Why do you think the evidence must be "conclusive"?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

So it seems Harris' main argument is that people suffer unjustifiably so God doesn't exist. But God will one day intervene to end all evil and to rectify all unjustified suffering. That fact is what atheistic philosophers forget when they talk about the problem of evil.

Rectify all unjustified suffering...unless the person suffering happened to be worshiping the wrong God. Then they get to go to hell and suffer some more.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So it seems Harris' main argument is that people suffer unjustifiably so God doesn't exist. But God will one day intervene to end all evil and to rectify all unjustified suffering. That fact is what atheistic philosophers forget when they talk about the problem of evil.

They haven't "forgotten" that part. Nor do they ignore it. God, as you stated, has not yet intervened.

Well now... What if, (bear with me on this), what if he does not ever intervene?

He hasn't yet... It's been like 30 centuries since these stories were written.... Maybe... just maybe, he isn't going to.

You believe he will eventually, when he gets around to it, intervene and squash evil like a bug but.... until he does.... I have no reason to believe he will.

That's why I am atheist.

 

[Paradoxum]

What is your position regarding the following:

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

Firstly, I'd say the argument has to be sufficiently strong. We don't understand the brain/mind yet, just like we didn't understand lightning at one point.

At one point only gods explained lightning. But now we know the natural origin. This should lead us not to just assume a phenomena is a god, just because we don't currently understand.

ie: Just because we don't know, that doesn't justifying saying that God did it. It makes more sense just to accept that no one knows currently.

Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object-directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation, or I can think of my wife. No physical object has intentionality in this sense. A chair or a stone or a glob of tissue like the brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states or states of consciousness are about other things. In The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions (2011), the materialist Alex Rosenberg recognizes this fact, and concludes that for atheists, there really are no intentional states. Rosenberg boldly claims that we never really think about anything. But this seems incredible. Obviously, I am thinking about Rosenberg’s argument – and so are you! This seems to me to be a reductio ad absurdum of his atheism. By contrast, for theists, because God is a mind, it’s hardly surprising that there should be other, finite minds, with intentional states. Thus intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic worldview.

I don't know much about intentionality, but I know there are problems in understanding consciousness (qualia), which is a similarly massive problem for materialism.

So my position on consciousness (and intentionality) would be, 'I don't know... we need more scientific progress on understanding the brain.'. I do think consciousness is real though, and perhaps the biggest puzzle in science.

I'm not sure how God really solves the problem though. Does he poof consciousness/ intentionality into existence at some point in reproduction for every individual animal?

Obviously there's some causal connection between the brain and mind (or they are they same thing). So when the brain senses light, the minds can see a colour. If the mind is a different substance than the brain, how does this work?

So we may argue:

1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.

Well I see no reason to accept this, and I'm not sure any argument has been put forward for this position.

Why should this be accepted?

Again I'd like to point out that jumping to 'God did it', because there's currently no scientific explanation, isn't wise.

Why?

Because a good and loving being would prevent great suffering.

Why do you think the evidence must be "conclusive"?

Perhaps 'conclusive' is too strong a word.

 

[Paradoxum]

According to...who...?

Me.

Yes, we talked about this at great length on another thread (which sadly got taken down by the mods for violating forum rules). I assume you remember the conversation.

Maaaaaaaaaaaaybe.

Do you agree that time must have had a beginning?

That makes sense to me, though I wouldn't say it's definitely true.