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.
Please explain why if it wasn't due to an eternal multiverse or succession of universes that it could only have been a god. Perhaps if it wasn't an eternal multiverseor succession of universes the answer is that you don't know?Here's the evidence I find most convincing that God exists.
Our universe had a beginning. The Big Bang is accepted by nearly all scientists.
If the universe had a beginning, either there is an eternal multiverse or succession of universes, or God created it. To say it just happened without a cause I see as highly irrational, but for sake of argument I'll pretend it is possible.
'God' is an umbrella term including any being that possesses intelligence, goodness, power, eternity, and preeminence (is greater than any other extant being.) Mormons believe God is physical, most Christians that he is triune, Hindus that he is dreaming (I think), Sikhs that he is composed of an unknowable essence and a knowable manifestation, etc. All these are theories about the same entity.
How do you determine which of these theories is likely true?
As an ignostic atheist, I am not even on that chart.The graph makes it clearer. I've been using atheist to mean gnostic atheist, and agnostic to mean agnostic atheist.
What other data might you have access to that I don't?I'm a semignostic theist I guess, as I'm more interested in probability than certainty, and find that what one can know depends on one's access t o data, which is different for different people
That would put the "atheist" in the impossible position of firstly defining what is meant by "God", then positing that such a thing does not exist.It is, but I still find this statement unbelievable. Isn't a truth statement a proposition that is either true or false, and atheism the proposition that there is no God?
Bad analogy. "Dark energy" is a tentative label put on the working hypothesis for certain behaviors of astronomical objects in independent verifiable observations. Evidence for its existence is not in dispute, while the mechanism (or necessary rewrite of the laws of physics) has yet to be determined.Would you be comfortable discussing the existence of dark energy with someone who defined it as 'the imaginary force?
Indeed, such as your definition for "atheism".A definition that assumes the position being defended is not that helpful.
You would first have to define "miracle" is some testable, falsifiable manner. Examples, as well: Were you able to find your missing car keys? Did you get that perfect parking spot in front of the theatre? Or did your foot grow back after it was bitten off by the shark?If God exists, miracles are his actions, if not, they are imaginary. Does that work for you?
The word does have negative connotations. Would you consider yourself "deluded" by optical illusions?Then you agree with my statement, except that deluded was too strong a word.
What does that mean?As an ignostic atheist, I am not even on that chart.
I haven't witnessed spectacular or undeniable miracles, but have heard of many who have. Consider near death experiences, in which people met God, and learned things they couldn't have known naturally (like who was outside the operating room, etc.) You won't convince them there is no God. Some are probably making it up, but I find it unreasonable to say all are. One doesn't counterfeit money that doesn't exist, rather what is in currency.What other data might you have access to that I don't?
Everybody knows roughly what is meant by God. I think most atheists would say that none of the common definitions match up to an existing entity, which would be a truth statement.That would put the "atheist" in the impossible position of firstly defining what is meant by "God", then positing that such a thing does not exist.
Atheism cannot be a truth statement.
Is theism being unconvinced of the proposition that there is no God? I think it more reasonable to assign the term agnostic to those who are unconvinced of either proposition.Atheism is being unconvinced of the proposition that there is a God, such that one lacks belief in such a being. Just that.
I think it's a fairly good analogy. God is a tentative label put on the hypothesis of a personal origin of the universe, the mechanism of whose existence has yet to be determined.Bad analogy. "Dark energy" is a tentative label put on the working hypothesis for certain behaviors of astronomical objects in independent verifiable observations. Evidence for its existence is not in dispute, while the mechanism (or necessary rewrite of the laws of physics) has yet to be determined.
Yes. While your first 2 examples may possibly be miracles, they may not and are not testable, as the last one is.You would first have to define "miracle" is some testable, falsifiable manner. Examples, as well: Were you able to find your missing car keys? Did you get that perfect parking spot in front of the theatre? Or did your foot grow back after it was bitten off by the shark?
I agree, the vast majority of religious people have not been reasonable in their approach. I don't see that as meaning religion can't be reasonable. Most appeal to direct revelation, and while I believe there have been some revelations, I don't see that any are certainly from God or totally reliable. What is certain is that if God designed the universe and the human soul, there is much that can be deduced about his nature from the natural world and from history. Sure there's some uncertainty, but at least plenty of material to work with. I recently read in Rousseau's Emile, in his section called 'confession of a savoyard vicar' an interesting bit of reasoning along those lines. Unlike Rousseau, I deduce God's goodness from his wisdom rather than his power (and the latter two attributes from his creation of the universe). I agree with Sam Harris' understanding of the ground of morality, and say the wellbeing of all conscious creatures is the only moral system that can be consistently applied, thus the only one God would choose.Archaeopterix: Hey Percivale, I'm very interested to know your response to this. To me, this is one of the fundamental problems with religion. Using the term 'theory' very loosely, they all have theories about the nature, personality and intentions of God. The vast majority doggedly insist that their theory unquestionably reflects certain immutable truths about God, and that all other theories are either outright false or distorted derivatives of their own theory. How do you determine which of these theories is likely true?
Yes, how about you? Of course, 100% proof almost never is available, and probability and values are both involved in forming our beliefs.If someone could provide 100% proof that your god doesn't exist, would you revise your belief?
As near as I can tell, those are the only other possibilities, and I wonder why atheists don't try to defend them, unless it's that they don't want to make any potentially falsifiable claims. True, we don't know everything and I could be wrong, but since we have the need to explore and seek truth, and tend to believe something, I won't let the lack of 100% certainty stop me from reasoning and theorizing.Please explain why if it wasn't due to an eternal multiverse or succession of universes that it could only have been a god. Perhaps if it wasn't an eternal multiverseor succession of universes the answer is that you don't know?
Everybody knows roughly what is meant by God.
...
I think it's a fairly good analogy. God is a tentative label put on the hypothesis of a personal origin of the universe, the mechanism of whose existence has yet to be determined.
I agree, the vast majority of religious people have not been reasonable in their approach. I don't see that as meaning religion can't be reasonable. Most appeal to direct revelation, and while I believe there have been some revelations, I don't see that any are certainly from God or totally reliable. What is certain is that if God designed the universe and the human soul, there is much that can be deduced about his nature from the natural world and from history. Sure there's some uncertainty, but at least plenty of material to work with. I recently read in Rousseau's Emile, in his section called 'confession of a savoyard vicar' an interesting bit of reasoning along those lines. Unlike Rousseau, I deduce God's goodness from his wisdom rather than his power (and the latter two attributes from his creation of the universe). I agree with Sam Harris' understanding of the ground of morality, and say the wellbeing of all conscious creatures is the only moral system that can be consistently applied, thus the only one God would choose.
What does that mean?
I have heard of many people that have been abducted by aliens, and returned. Are you concerned about being abducted by aliens? Testimony without corroborating evidence is of little value.I haven't witnessed spectacular or undeniable miracles, but have heard of many who have.
Provide one case in which this "learned things they couldn't have known" has been independently verified.Consider near death experiences, in which people met God, and learned things they couldn't have known naturally (like who was outside the operating room, etc.) You won't convince them there is no God. Some are probably making it up, but I find it unreasonable to say all are.
?One doesn't counterfeit money that doesn't exist, rather what is in currency.
God is a character in a book. I do not speak for everyone.Everybody knows roughly what is meant by God.
I find attempts to shift the burden of evidence to others to be intellectually dishonest.I think most atheists would say that none of the common definitions match up to an existing entity, which would be a truth statement.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. Theism is the belief in deities, agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Why are you so hung up on labels?(quote from Mark on the topic)
Is theism being unconvinced of the proposition that there is no God? I think it more reasonable to assign the term agnostic to those who are unconvinced of either proposition.
Your analogy fails at your presupposition of a "personal origin of the universe". The "dark energy" label is applied to *actual* observed motion, not presupposed motion.I think it's a fairly good analogy. God is a tentative label put on the hypothesis of a personal origin of the universe, the mechanism of whose existence has yet to be determined.
Define "miracle" in a testable, falsifiable manner.Yes. While your first 2 examples may possibly be miracles, they may not and are not testable, as the last one is.
Define "soul".I agree, the vast majority of religious people have not been reasonable in their approach. I don't see that as meaning religion can't be reasonable. Most appeal to direct revelation, and while I believe there have been some revelations, I don't see that any are certainly from God or totally reliable. What is certain is that if God designed the universe and the human soul, there is much that can be deduced about his nature from the natural world and from history. Sure there's some uncertainty, but at least plenty of material to work with. I recently read in Rousseau's Emile, in his section called 'confession of a savoyard vicar' an interesting bit of reasoning along those lines. Unlike Rousseau, I deduce God's goodness from his wisdom rather than his power (and the latter two attributes from his creation of the universe). I agree with Sam Harris' understanding of the ground of morality, and say the wellbeing of all conscious creatures is the only moral system that can be consistently applied, thus the only one God would choose.
Atheism is only a position on the existence of deities.Talquin: Yes, how about you? Of course, 100% proof almost never is available, and probability and values are both involved in forming our beliefs.
As near as I can tell, those are the only other possibilities, and I wonder why atheists don't try to defend them, unless it's that they don't want to make any potentially falsifiable claims.
When you get to reasoning and theorizing, let me know.True, we don't know everything and I could be wrong, but since we have the need to explore and seek truth, and tend to believe something, I won't let the lack of 100% certainty stop me from reasoning and theorizing.
(quote from Mark on the topic) Is theism being unconvinced of the proposition that there is no God?
How do we test this hypothesis?
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.
In the same manner, you could test for the existence of Santa by asking him for a new bike for Christmas.
You first.
I actually tested Santa by asking for something I knew my mother could not get me: life for a fairy toy I had. Santa failed. And failed the "tests" besides that as well.
In the same manner, you could test for the existence of Santa by asking him for a new bike for Christmas.
You first.
-_- not really a test there. Plus, belief is not a choice.
No, claims are shown to be true when they can be demonstrated to others as not simply being the result of personal experience, such as self deception, coincidence, and confirmation bias.I agree with you. The proof is in the pudding. Claims are shown to be true to us when we ourselves behold them coming to fruition in the realm of practical experience.
I actually tested Santa by asking for something I knew my mother could not get me: life for a fairy toy I had. Santa failed. And failed the "tests" besides that as well.
Repent and believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.How do we test this hypothesis?
No, claims are shown to be true when they can be demonstrated to others as not simply being the result of personal experience, such as self deception, coincidence, and confirmation bias.
Are you going to talk to Santa like he really exists?
Would you accept this claim if it came from any other religion? If not, then why expect us to?
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?