Does God exist?

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, but only humans are busy killing each other over their homosexual behaviors. My dog, for example, is too busy getting it on with anyone or anything to really have time for that.

And ironically, humans hate on gays based on what their god said in their religious books. Or, in other words, because their adherence to divine command theory.

God says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. Right?

 

[Received]

And ironically, humans hate on gays based on what their god said in their religious books. Or, in other words, because their adherence to divine command theory.

God says it's wrong, so it must be wrong. Right?

Lol, you think only the religious variable is responsible for people hating gays?

There are plenty of people who aren't religious, or religious in name only, or use their fundamentalist religion as a bullhorn to express their hatred of gays.

 

[Received]

Remember, not all religious morality is divine command theory. Kant I can't get an amen?

 

[quatona]

I'd say that morality expresses its power through being "convincing" as you say.

We both win.

Shut up and just accept it. Please.

I don´t need to "accept" it, because it was implicit in my initial statement.
If indeed we both win, you could have simply accepted my initial statement, instead of introducing pointless equivocations of "authority" which didn´t help with anything.

Let´s try a new start. Here´s my initial statement again:

Isn´t that exactly when it becomes convenient to appeal to a deity that allegedly sides with you: if you want to establish a "morality" that otherwise nobody would accept?

(emphasis added)
Now compare your "win-win" summary ("morality expresses its power[...]") to it: Nothing of the crucial parts is left of the initial statement - neither the "appeal to" nor the "deity"(or external entity to appeal to, in a more general sense).

Geeze, you´re almost like your God: Creating unnecessary drama and conflict just so that in the end the drama can be settled and the conflicts solved.

[Of course, the wording "morality expresses its power" rubs me the wrong way, too, if presented as an interpretation of my statement: No, morality doesn´t express anything. Morality is not an entity, even less a conscious or self-aware or communicating one.
All this pomposity, all these big words coupled with false equivocations, in replacement of very down to earth statements ("People like to be treated well, and would feel safer if they could be sure everyone feels the same and acts accordingly") is increasingly pulling my nerves. Sorry.]

And just so to avoid the next equivocation:
I am saying: doing good things is appealing (intransitive!). It doesn´t need to appeal to anything (transitive!) in order to be convincing.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Several things.

First, an argument is only as good as its premises. I have yet to be presented with an argument for the existence of a god of which the premises aren't loaded with logical fallacies. I really don't understand how a person like William Lane Craig can be taken seriously by anyone.

Secondly, I don't see how such arguments matter at all. A philosophical argument by itself is not capable of showing the specific actual existence of anything without having actual empirical data to support it. Pure philosophy has its place, but distinguishing existence from non-existence of specific objects or entities is not one of them. Not without empirical data.




Since the OP of this thread is the broad question "does a god exist?" with a request to offer the evidence and arguments... how about YOU propose an argument to support your position that a god exists? I'll show you how it's fallacious, don't worry




Observing that there is suffering and injustice are things consistent with a universe not ruled by a loving god who cares and has the power to interfere.

I wouldn't really call it evidence as it could be that this guys has his reasons not to interfer and that somehow it's the moral thing to do. It could be that we don't see the big picture.

But it could also be that we live in the matrix.

As you say, we look for the best explanation. The best explanation is generally the one that needs the least assumptions, even if it turns out to be wrong in light of new evidence.

Seeing as your entire proposed explanation is completely for 100% dependend on faith based assumptions, it could not possibly be the best explanation. It's not even an explanation. Your entire story is a gigantic faith based assumption.


In science, the explanation also needs to be plausible. Anything is possible. Evidence for a specific thing makes the thing plausible.

There is no evidence of gods.

And "god-dun-it" is not an explanation. In fact, it's a thing that requires it's own ginormous explanation. Your "explanation" needs an explanation. That can't be good.

Let us formally debate what it is that you think is the most convincing argument against the existence of God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay, now I'll really get complicated. Morality involves sets of ideas that actualize a previous non-ideological sense of universality. Two savages walk up to one another and one hits the other; both sense, by appealing to universality (whether or not you say it's evolutionarily adapted), that there's something wrong with this action. Putting it into rules just makes this sense of wrongness much more concrete.

Except there is no universality

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

This is one of my problems with theism. "Hey, there's this thing we don't quite understand, and it seems too complicated to have a naturalistic explanation, so let's assume it exists eternally with no explanation necessary in this thing called God." Um, how can that be satisfying? If this is something that you're really curious about, something you need to have answered, why is the "God did it, no further explanation necessary"-style of answer at all satisfying?

I have problems with those types of arguments just like you do.

They are called "God of the gaps" arguments.

The argument from intentional states of consciousness is not a God of the gaps argument however.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Except there is no universality

Then tell that to atheists who want to condemn as universally immoral, the actions of Yahweh.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let us formally debate what it is that you think is the most convincing argument against the existence of God.

Wrong position, that isn't what atheists argue.

 

[quatona]

Then tell that to atheists who want to condemn as universally immoral, the actions of Yahweh.

Sure. Show me one, and I´ll have a word with him.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Wrong position, that isn't what atheists argue.

You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then tell that to atheists who want to condemn as universally immoral, the actions of Yahweh.

You don't find ordering pregnant women's bellies to be torn open, their unborn children killed in front of them, and then killing the women after that torment immoral? Morality isn't universal in that opinions of what is and isn't immoral to the majority of society change over time. At some point clearly this was considered to be acceptable, now not so much.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?

That is an argument that a completely benevolent, omnipotent god couldn't exist, not that a deity without those qualities couldn't exist

 

[super animator]

TC Define God.

 

[quatona]

You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?

No. I have heard of an argument that goes like "If evil exists, an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything can´t be omnibenevolent."
Not saying that I necessarily subscribe to this argument, just saying that in decades of hearing arguments against Christian ideas, I have never heard the argument as you are paraphrasing it.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You don't find ordering pregnant women's bellies to be torn open, their unborn children killed in front of them, and then killing the women after that torment immoral? Morality isn't universal in that opinions of what is and isn't immoral to the majority of society change over time. At some point clearly this was considered to be acceptable, now not so much.

Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.

If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.

 

[bhsmte]

You have never heard of the argument from evil which seeks to show that God does not exist because evil exists?

What you refer to is one piece of a much larger argument that the God of the bible as described is extremely difficult to reconcile with reality. Most atheists will then say; that points to him either not existing, or not being what the bible describes him as.

I can't reconcile a loving God that cares for all his creation allowing 9 million children to die and suffer every year and for that same God to allow the serial killer to find eternal paradise by finding Jesus in prison, while the non-believer or Hindu who lives a life of helping others, will burn for eternity. On the latter, could be why someone like Billy Graham before he died didn't buy that any longer either and stated you didn't need to know Jesus to get to heaven. His conscious and the immorality of this dogma, likely was something he couldn't accept any longer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.

If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.

Exactly. Which is why morality is so inconsistent across different times and societies.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

That is an argument that a completely benevolent, omnipotent god couldn't exist, not that a deity without those qualities couldn't exist

Do you think the existence of evil and the existence of an all loving and all powerful God is logically incompatible?

 

[bhsmte]

Sarah, maybe no one has told you this, but you need to know.

If what is moral or immoral is solely a matter of human opinion and feeling and preference, then your opinion that killing pregnant women is immoral is like you saying pizza is nasty. Many might share your opinion and agree with you. Those that do not simply do not.

And that is the way it has always been, even amongst Christians, as Christians have different opinions on what is moral or not.