PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Lack of evidence that excludes gods or indicates gods leads me to being inconclusive. There is such a thing as "I have no freaking clue as far as the evidence goes".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Really? Lack of evidence for a god leads you to conclude there's a god?
Achilles said:YHWH is not a Canaanite war god. His origins are strictly Hebrew: you need to read the Old Testament if you believe otherwise.
What is it about "we DON'T KNOW." did you not get?
She never claimed God existed. SHE SAID SHE DID NOT KNOW.
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).
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.
I can´t seem to make any sense of the wording "rectifying suffering", in the first place.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.
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 Atheists 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 Rosenbergs 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, its 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.
What is your position regarding the following:
(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
How so?...God exists because the universe is intelligible.
This sort of thread is pointless... nobody ever seems to change their mind due to arguments about God.
I'm convinced most people believe, or disbelieve in God for reasons totally unrelated to rational argumentation. People turn to arguments to confirm what they already want to believe but want intellectual credibility.
Having said that, I find the philosophical justifications of Alfred North Whitehead's theism persuasive. God exists because the universe is intelligible.
God exists because the universe is intelligible? I don't get that, we can understand things through science, in how the natural world operates and to me, that is quite a leap to say God exists because we can understand the universe.
The intelligibility of the universe implies a supreme intelligence that organizes the universe. Rather than overthrowing science, this upholds the finding of science with moral gravity.
We have learned nothing that tells us the natural world could not have done the same. Although, I understand why believers would want to latch onto what you claim.
I agree... but the belief in God adds a moral gravity to our scientific understanding that would be weakened or lacking, otherwise.
Adds moral gravity?
I guess that would depend which God you are referring to. The God of the bible does not set a moral standard that I would deem positive.
In regards to global warming, are you saying without a God, there is no reason to be concerned about it?
The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, so I am not sure that statement makes much sense. There are many possible Gods of the Bible, not all of them will be correct.
For what it's worth... I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. My faith is informed by the Bible of course, but also by human reason and experience.
David Hume, an avowed skeptic, said as much: "Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"
Yes, the bible is interpreted in many different ways and that is also psychologically driven as people pick the interpretation, that meets their personal needs the best.
And, I do believe the God depicted in the bible, is a mixed bag, some moral, some very immoral.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?