Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[zazzy1234]

This thread is for discussions about whether God exists.

I created a similar thread a long with the same title but I eventually deleted it because it became a monster. I am reluctant to recreate this thread, however such discussions about God are encroaching on a number of different topics and should be contained.

I strongly suggest that anyone taking part in this thread read the Fallacies section of the argument guide.

r u alright, god does exsist stupid? lol

 

[Cookie182]

r u alright, god does exsist stupid? lol

Just lol.

What?

 

[BradCube]

I'm interested as to how you would go about positively proving the non-existence of something?

I would propose the following schema for positively arguing for the non-existence of an entity (e).

A person (x) is warranted in believing in the non existence of e if:

1) e is such that if it existed then we would expect to find evidence (or any other epistemic grounding for belief) of e's existence
2) x, believes they are in a good epistemic position to search and examine for such evidence
3) x finds no such evidence, evidence contrary or evidence improbable with regard to the existence of e

Under this, I would propose the atheist should look to positively attack the theists position by not only showing faults with the theists arguments, but also by demonstrating the unlikely hood or impossibility of God by showing the lack of evidence for which if God had of existed, evidence would have also existed. In other words, if God is such that if He existed, we would expect to find evidence of His existence (from 1), you should show where this lack of evidence is.

For example, when looking at the Christian God, an atheist could bring up an argument from suffering in order to demonstrate the impossibility of a benevolent and omnipotent God existing. In this case the atheist is showing a clear lack of evidence for Gods existence by showing evidence contrary to the evidence we would expect to find if God existed. If the argument is successful, the atheist is warranted in believing that such a God does not exist. One could also point out an area of incoherence in Christian doctrine (ie, the trinity, incarnation, fall etc)

An atheist could also attack Gods (in a general sense) by pointing out inconsistencies or problems that are relevant to the properties of multiple Gods (eg monotheistic, benevolent, omnipotent etc)

 

[BradCube]

omg brad cube is back ~

I regularly wander around the pool - but rarely do I dip my toe

 

[carpetdiem]

why do girls believe in god when god and the mainstream religions (ie: christian, islam, judaism) consider females to be second class people and unimportant, the only thing women are good for in regards to religion is poping out more babies so they can follow that religion.

 

[Sprangler]

why do girls believe in god when god and the mainstream religions (ie: christian, islam, judaism) consider females to be second class people and unimportant, the only thing women are good for in regards to religion is poping out more babies so they can follow that religion.

Pushed on them by their parents? Generally the same reason most people subscribe to religious beliefs.

 

[BradCube]

The default position is indeed with the side who has a lack of belief, and their support for that position is the absence of evidence to the contrary.

But your position is more than a lack of belief. As I have expressed elsewhere, a simple lack of belief in God characterizes atheists, agnostics, dogs, cats and rocks alike. As such, it alone can not be used a definition of an atheist.

Rather, as an atheist you don't simply "lack a belief in god" you believe that "God does not exist". This is a positive claim to knowledge about the way the world is. If you are a hard line atheist, then you are just as owing in your share of the burden of proof as far as I can tell.

If you want to say instead that you are a weak atheist and simply have a "lack of belief", then I relieve you of your share of the burden of proof. If you do take this route, please know that I regard you as an agnostic in disguise and not as an atheist

Trying to pin the atheistic side with a "positive claim of knowledge" is not only deceptive but purposely ignores the fundamental principle of inquiry. In your example, yes, you can claim the world-believer's claim as false, but they would be able to provide strong evidence that the world as we usually consider it does in fact exist, so it's not a problem. If the burden of proof was on the non-believer's side, we would be obliged to believe in all manner of unfalsifiable propositions like leprechauns and fairies.

Certainly the evidence for the existence of the world (assuming properly basic beliefs for the moment) is strong, but would we be as inclined to believe that evidence if the split between believers and non-believers was 50/50 as is the case with the poll?

I can understand "lack of belief" as a default position, but surely the claim that "God does not exist" entails that one must first know what God is, and must have some reasons for why He does not not exist?

With this, we are not compelled to believe in all unfalsifiable propositions since I'm not claiming that the affirmative is the default position. Instead we should start as agnostics and then provide reasons for why we find the existence of an entity probable/improbable. As I originally claimed, with poll results as they are, the burden of proof should be equally shouldered between theists and atheists alike. Only the standard agnostic/weak atheist has the comfortable (and enviable ) position of being free of any burden of proof.

 

[BradCube]

why do girls believe in god when god and the mainstream religions (ie: christian, islam, judaism) consider females to be second class people and unimportant, the only thing women are good for in regards to religion is poping out more babies so they can follow that religion.

Wow, so many things here!

Firstly, I think it's a huge generalization to state that all mainstream religions treat women as second class citizens. I think you would find that any christian church (and 99% of christians themselves) around today would disagree with you. I won't bother going into detail on this, but suffice to say that your opinion is not mainstream opinion - at least within christianity.

Secondly, lets assume that your assertions are correct and all mainstream religions teach that women are second class citizens. What difference does this make to whether a female believes in God? At most, it may impact which religion she follows (if any at all). What these religions teach may not reflect what Gods actual beliefs are, or the way he intends females to be treated.

Thirdly, lets extend your assertion further than this and assume that all religions and God himself believes that women were created as second class citizens. Why should this affect whether a female believes in God? If God did create women as second class citizens, are they warranted in their unbelief simply because they don't like the thought of it?

 

[Sprangler]

BradCube is right about the default position.
When you are born, you cannot possibly be a theist. Becoming a theist, that is, believing in a deity, requires the conscience decision of weighing up all the for and against "evidence", then deciding to believe in the existence of God. Becoming an atheist is the same process except you believe in the non-existence of God.

The default position is that you simply have no idea. I have no idea where all this universe shit came from or if there is truly a "point" to life, and I believe that neither myself nor anyone else, whether atheist, agnostic or theist will ever know anything about the universe or life other than what science can tell us.

 

[KFunk]

I would propose the following schema for positively arguing for the non-existence of an entity (e).

A person (x) is warranted in believing in the non existence of e if:

1) e is such that if it existed than we would expect to find evidence (or any other epistemic grounding for belief) of e's existence
2) x, believes they are in a good epistemic position to search and examine for such evidence
3) x finds no such evidence, evidence contrary or evidence improbable with regard to the existence of e

I think that this is fairly reasonable, though I would still be inclined to add:

1.1) Or if e is such that, if it existed, it would not provide evidence of its existence

You could certainly argue that this is more properly a criterion for an agnostic stance (versus a positive belief in non-existence), but I think that, at a minimum, it justifies non-belief.

Also note the possible relativist reading of your criterion (2).

 

[gibbo153]

I would propose the following schema for positively arguing for the non-existence of an entity (e).

A person (x) is warranted in believing in the non existence of e if:

1) e is such that if it existed then we would expect to find evidence (or any other epistemic grounding for belief) of e's existence
2) x, believes they are in a good epistemic position to search and examine for such evidence
3) x finds no such evidence, evidence contrary or evidence improbable with regard to the existence of e

i'd agree with that proof and kfunk's revision.

but the God of Christianity is a God who distinctly says that there is a choice to follow him, and that there will be many who don't choose to. For this to be possible, there will never be no absolutely irrefutable and conclusive evidence for God's existence (evidence specifically meaning evidence that all people would accept), otherwise, everyone would of course accept God's existence, thus defeating the concept of choice.

i'm not saying this with intent to flatly rort, nor to suggest that anyone is clearly wrong to even conceive an alternative, more simply to explain the Christian viewpoint. Obviously athiests would not accept this explanation, but that is the Christian belief.

 

[asdfpoiu]

hm.. i still don't really understand bradcube's scheme.. wouldn't doing that only be able to disprove certain qualities of god?

 

[L]

m8 i know god hes a gud frend


hes sure 2 exist m9

 

[BradCube]

1.1) Or if e is such that, if it existed, it would not provide evidence of its existence

I like the new criterion, although I think it shifts the argument from a positive demonstration of non-belief to an absolute agnostic stance.

If e existed and would not provide evidence of its existence, then it becomes impossible to know (and much less show) that such an entity does or does not exist. We seem to be forced into not just a lack of belief, but a positive claim that it is impossible to know if e exists or not. I think you alluded to this though.

Also note the possible relativist reading of your criterion (2).

Indeed. This is what debate is for though!

I <3 you and these dialogues KFunk. I miss them dearly

 

[BradCube]

hm.. i still don't really understand bradcube's scheme.. wouldn't doing that only be able to disprove certain qualities of god?

Certainly showing inconsistencies in some properties will not take out the whole concept of God. It will however knock out certain conceptions of God.

For example, if one is able to show that God is not "personal", you have completely invalided the Christian conception of God and either Christian theist's will need to propose a new doctrine of God, give up their faith or hold on to it in ignorance.

Further to this, if you are able to falsify or invalidate positive arguments for Gods existence (thinking natural theology, personal revelation etc) you will have reduced the theist to agnosticism even without showing inconsistencies in their God.

Going further than this (and establishing a positive case for non-belief) will depend on your definition of God. If you propose that God is a transcendent cause for the universe, then showing that the universe does not have a cause or that such a cause could not be transcendent will wipe that broader conception of God off the radar.

 

[KFunk]

I like the new criterion, although I think it shifts the argument from a positive demonstration of non-belief to an absolute agnostic stance.

If e existed and would not provide evidence of its existence, then it becomes impossible to know (and much less show) that such an entity does or does not exist. We seem to be forced into not just a lack of belief, but a positive claim that it is impossible to know if e exists or not. I think you alluded to this though.

It is in cases where it is impossible to know that I think burden of proof is most interesting. More correctly, we know that proof is impossible either way in such cases so it is not a matter of burden of proof so much as intellectually responsible assumption.

One might then ask whether it is simply a case of applying a single, simple principle like Ockham's Razor which would demand that we reject belief in such invisible entities (since they will never be empirically justifiable as theoretical embellishments) or whether it is more complicated than that. For example, if we start to bring in aesthetic or moral considerations it may turn out to matter, for other reasons, whether something is thought to exist - though such considerations are unlikely to stand in the dogmatic forms of the court of reason.

There are also interesting anomalous cases at the limits of thought - take, for example, Aristotle's concept of prime matter (though I believe this is not Aristotle's terminology) which acts as the most fundamental material and so exists entirely without form - i.e. no predicates/properties/descriptions can apply to prime matter (note the contradiction that arises in thus speaking of it). Prime matter is what is left when you strip away all form/properties. Such a physicological substrate would necessarily be without any sensible qualities - in fact, it is an interesting limit case of the Kantian sublime, i.e. that of which we can form an idea but which we cannot represent (e.g. one can represent a square, but not a 1000 sided shape, even though we can grasp the idea of each). It is unclear in cases like prime matter whether Ockham's razor even applies since we seem to exit the domain of empirical science and arrive at logic or metaphysics or aethetics or ... et cetera.

Indeed. This is what debate is for though!

Debate with respect to what constitutes a good epistemic position? Or with respect to whether we should allow a criteria which allows for individual definitions of epistemic warrant? (Or both!?)

 

[Brontecat]

these posts are gone but recently someone was talking about religion being the source of nazism and ww2 and i found this website with

1. "Hitler believed in struggle as a
Darwinian principle of human life
Struggle forced people to try to
dominate others
This justified the extermination of the Jews
Used evolution to rationalize his hatred of the Jews
“If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race (like the Germanic race) should intermingle with an inferior (like the Jewish race.) Why? Because, in such a case her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” From Mein Kampf. "

2. "Hitler considered Germans a superior race
Intermarriage of Germans with Jews would jeopardize an evolutionary higher state for Germans
State had the responsibility of declaring unfit for reproduction, anyone who is ill or genetically unsound
Justified the massacre of millions of people
“Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions.”
Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist)"



i was just wondering what ppl make of this - its probs not from the best source though What Is The Impact of Evolution On Our Society?

 

[Cookie182]

I am curious as to Bradcube's exact theological position?

Also, I enjoyed your logic. Obviously, the default state then becomes agnosticism in respect to the knowledge of a recently born child. From that, I would ask what your position is then in regards to other gods (I'm assuming here you believe in the Judeo-Christian god)?

Let's take the god's of the Hindu pantheon for example, would you positively exert their non-existence (atheist) or do you retain an agnostic position here? I recognise that most 'Western' people, probably retain an agnostic position from birth simply due to:

1) Ignorance of any knowledge of their theology (could blame cultural/educational factors here)
2) Lack of care/interest

Although arrogantly, I would say I am an atheist with respect to all deities, simply through the lack of evidence I find in researching the Judeo-Christian traditions. I admit that in respect to your logic, this is an arrogant position, as can one use the lack of evidence for one faith to prove the lack of evidence for all?

I don’t believe in Amun-Re or Zeus (and positively assert their non-existence) but is this an ignorant position given that I have not done any research into lack of evidence with respect to these specific deities?

I also doubt I am highly alone in doing this.

 

[mcflystargirl]

why do girls believe in god when god and the mainstream religions (ie: christian, islam, judaism) consider females to be second class people and unimportant, the only thing women are good for in regards to religion is poping out more babies so they can follow that religion.

christianity does not consider women un-important!

 

[Crestwood's_G]

christianity does not consider women un-important!

no...thats why they have only been given rights in the last 50 years...and still have a glass ceiling