God's Existence

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']Any imaginable physical thing that happens in the world could always be explained by some potential natural phenomena. Therefore, I think, it is not possible to have any sort of evidence or proof for the existence of God or gods (which necessarily would be non-physical, most would agree) as the other physical explanations would always dominate.[/quote]

Yes, and that leads one to conclude that the physical world is eternally existent.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']The above also leads to the conclusion that all religions are and will always be wrong.[/quote]

How so? It's not possible that there a true religion or belief? Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true, but if there isn't a contradiction, then one or the other could be true.

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 08:58 PM']How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?[/quote]

Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table? Does lust inspire people? Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Oliver' post='1928076' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:44 AM']You don't understand the argument I was trying to make. If the particles were all to move at the same time so the mary statue would wave the probability would be soo high and rare that I would believe a miracle did happen. Dawkins beliefs in chance, we believe in God. Any miracle that has happened he thinks there is no supernatural force but it's purely chance or luck no matter how improbable it maybe.[/quote]
I understand your argument. I disagree that Dawkins contradicts himself because a miracel requires an intelligent force. The mechanism is unimportant, in this case.

[Winchester]

[quote]Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.[/quote]
I don't accept that definition of existence. It reduces existence to the realm of phenomena. It makes existence dependant on perceptible accidents. It rejects reason, which does not exist as matter or energy, though the use of reason is measurable, we are not certain yet of its origin. If you argue that reason is physical because its electrochemical, then you must agree that God exists because, as a concept within the human mind, he has a physical form. In your world, then, concept would be reality. The end of your argument is, bizarrely, solipsism.

[quote]The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists.[/quote]
It's only a contradiction if one accepts your definition of existence. Even if one did, the question would remain open as science may well be incapable of detecting certain kinds of energy or matter. In rejecting one God, you're merely putting another in its place.

[philothea]

Varg:
[quote]Existence is a relatively simple concept -- it is defined as that which consists of either matter or energy. Therefore if a god exists, it must be composed of either matter or energy.

The opposite must also be true. If a god is not composed of matter or energy, then that god, by definition, does not exist. Thus to argue that a god exist, despite a total absence of matter or energy, is to argue, existence equals non-existence, which is a complete contradiction.
If a god exists, then physical evidence is really the only methodology by which we can ascertain that a god exists.[/quote]

By that definition neither time nor space exist either.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think O had two thoughts going on when he said dawkins shut out his own argument. O said "the moving particles are too far fetched to not be God (though hinting it's possible)" and then a separate statement (though combined in a paragraph, adding to confusion) "arguing anything is possible but not miracles is self contradictory"
i might be wrong, in hwat O intended to be arguing

i only find him ie dawkins not self contradictory, cause i know dawkins says that God might exist, there's a very slight, in his mind, possibility. so he's not precluding it, as O said. it's just a case of really really really really bad judgment on dawkins' part that he'd think it's just chance or some phenomenon that we don't know about. (when would the obvious ever be enough?)

[Varg]

[quote name='philothea' post='1928269' date='Jul 22 2009, 12:57 PM']Varg:


By that definition neither time nor space exist either.[/quote]I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-(

Edited July 22, 2009 by Varg

[Winchester]

[quote name='Varg' post='1928280' date='Jul 22 2009, 02:04 PM']I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-([/quote]
Nope, I'm afraid it's simply vapid. But stick with us and you will develop taste and decency, and, possibly, theology and geometry.

[philothea]

[quote name='Varg' post='1928280' date='Jul 22 2009, 02:04 PM']I didn't write it I just thought it was interesting :-([/quote]



Discussing the nature of reality is pretty much doomed to failure. It's hard enough in the realm of physics, using only mathematics!

[Semalsia]

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']It also makes the discussion of the reality of [i]anything at all[/i] futile.[/quote]

How so? There's much we can say about the world we live in. We can see and touch and sense it in many ways. My point was that it's only pointless to discuss something of which we can't know anything about. And that would be God and everything else of that sort.

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']Unless you live a very complicated life, I assume you believe the things you interact with on a daily basis exist outside of your own senses, and behave in a predictable way. I imagine you also believe in things you have never seen, yet have been told of by credible sources.

There's not a whole lot of difference between believing in God, and believing in the existence of quarks, black holes, or Io, except that those don't require you to do anything. You can believe or disbelieve and it really doesn't make much difference. Therefore, most people believe -- why not?[/quote]

Sure, I do. However I could know directly about all of those thing, if I just dedicated the time to study them. It's not impossible to sense them and all those who do, show that by providing proof and evidence for what they say. That's why they are credible. Not so with God, since no matter how long I study I could never sense God. And neither could anyone else in the world. Yet people who believe in God and who have nothing but their own feelings to cite talk like God's existence is a truism. Now how does that make sense?

[quote name='philothea' post='1927760' date='Jul 22 2009, 04:55 AM']Believing in the Judeo-Christian God, though, requires you to change your life and act a certain way, a way which is in many ways contrary to natural inclination. So, often it's easier to disbelieve.[/quote]

You're right. I suppose it comes down to how important it is to know for sure. If someone comes and shouts that there's a bomb in the building, you don't stay and demand he provides proof, instead you run. And if someone credible tells you about quarks, sure believe it since it's no big deal if it turns out to be false later. But if there's a cost to believing, you don't want to be wrong and so it's only natural to demand proof.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1927205' date='Jul 22 2009, 01:09 AM']Have you ever been completely happy? Fully at peace? Unable to fathom anything greater than that moment?

Be honest with yourself.[/quote]

What does my happiness has to do with whether God exists or not?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']Yes, and that leads one to conclude that the physical world is eternally existent.[/quote]

Is that a bad thing?

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']How so? It's not possible that there a true religion or belief? Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true, but if there isn't a contradiction, then one or the other could be true.[/quote]

I suppose someone could be right by pure chance, but it seems to me very unlikely because the amount of potential religions is so vast. It would be like trying to guess the color of an object that you will never see. It's not likely that you'll get it right and even if you do, no one can tell if you got it right or not. So even if one of the current religions has got it right, there's no way we can know which if any.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table? Does lust inspire people? Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?[/quote]

All feelings are different from each other of course, but they are all still only feelings. How does the fact that love inspires people necessitate that it has divine origin?

Where does love come from? The core of human nature is equally filled with envy, hatred and mistrust as it is with love. I'd expect love to come from the very same place as those do.

[philothea]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928686' date='Jul 22 2009, 08:15 PM']How so? There's much we can say about the world we live in. We can see and touch and sense it in many ways. My point was that it's only pointless to discuss something of which we can't know anything about. And that would be God and everything else of that sort.

[snip]

Sure, I do. However I could know directly about all of those thing, if I just dedicated the time to study them. It's not impossible to sense them and all those who do, show that by providing proof and evidence for what they say. That's why they are credible. Not so with God, since no matter how long I study I could never sense God. And neither could anyone else in the world. Yet people who believe in God and who have nothing but their own feelings to cite talk like God's existence is a truism. Now how does that make sense?[/quote]
Why do you say that religious people [i]only[/i] talk about feelings? Most religions of the organized, modern type (as opposed to natural/pantheistic/"pagan" religions) were founded by specific individuals, presenting specific doctrines, evidence, and reasoning.

Now you could say that the founder was a lying or crazy or fabricated, or that the evidence and subsequent development of the religion were wrong (or have gone wrong), but Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were not outgrowths of a bunch of us getting together and searching our feelings. These religions are very specific and independent. We have a whole topic going about the parts of Catholicism we have trouble with!

In fact, Christianity in particular is weird, counterintuitive, and very much contrary to the way most ordinary people would like reality to be. Not the kind of thing that people would just make up if they were inclined to do so.

Back to evidence. You can only say that you, at this very moment, have seen no evidence which proves to you that God exists. I can't guess how hard you have or haven't looked, or what you've tried. May I ask what evidence would convince you to entertain the idea that God [i]might[/i] be real?

(I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational, and I'm not going to attack you. It's an honest question which I don't find too many people willing to answer. I hope everyone else will be considerate as well!)

If any of you other atheists/agnostics want to answer as well, I'd be interested!

[dairygirl4u2c]

most of the time, folks in his situation just write off proof, eg miracles. they say it can't be proven. they say they happen to atheists etc too, it's all just chance. they go insane and pull a dawkins- start gasping at straws to downplay a mary statue that is crying. they question whether the statues ever cry.
i suppose one could argue 'it's not *God* doing these things-- it's some unknown', though that's also gasping, given thesists are the ones who have the powers here, it's taking the least obvious route to insist it's not God.
and, granted, perhpas it's not "God" like we're taught about in this place, or that place, but it's something to that effect

it's not until they are willing to confront and accept the evidence that they make any progress.

i know how they think. i'd think most who are objective thinkers have been there at least to some degree. one does have to sort out one's though, afterall. we're all blank pages from the beginning. it's only when ya stopping sorting, and start shreeding evidence etc, taht things go bad. (such as pulling a dawkins

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1926456' date='Jul 21 2009, 09:46 AM']I don't know what you mean. There is evidence on both sides of the debate. For the most part, people are convinced by the evidence that supports what they've observed and learned in life. Nobody is unbiased.[/quote]

Evidence is not proof.

I agree that psychological dispositions influence how an individual views evidence, however that is not the same as making the criteria for proof contingent on an individuals disposition.

[Hassan]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1927205' date='Jul 21 2009, 09:09 PM']Have you ever been completely happy? Fully at peace? Unable to fathom anything greater than that moment?

Be honest with yourself.[/quote]


I don't think so. Why would it matter though?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1928057' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:18 AM']I don't agree with Dawkins, but I understand his argument.[/quote]


From what I've read i this thread it sounds like an adaptation of Hume's anti-miracle argument.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929688' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:17 PM']From what I've read i this thread it sounds like an adaptation of Hume's anti-miracle argument.[/quote]
Brit Hume?

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:37 AM']Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table?[/quote]

I thought Julius II twisted his arm on that one.

[quote]Does lust inspire people?[/quote]

The Miricle of Wine
by Meer Taqi Meer

Last night she emerged, a little drunk
It was as if the sun was out

My life I'd gladly give the wineglass
That drowned your modesty and brought you out


So I'd say it can

[quote]Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?[/quote]

genes.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1929690' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:19 PM']Brit Hume?[/quote]


David

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929695' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:23 PM']David [/quote]
Brinkley?