So says you. I say God needs more explanations than the universe, since the universe is at least obviously here. God, not so much.
Every proof that God exists has been shown to be logically false. You want to offer any particular proof that you think doesn’t fit this mold? Or would you like to concede the point?
How do you know the universe didn’t originate from its surroundings? What surrounds the universe? Furthermore, what surrounds God? Did He originate from his surroundings, or was he brought there by some agent?
Boulders falling out of the sky are very extraordinary. There is nothing to tell us that the universe existing is of this nature. Until we have more knowledge of the universe and its beginnings, we don’t know if the proper question to ask is “why is the universe here?” or “where else should it be?” Where did the boulder come from? If there is no way of knowing, wouldn’t be even less useful if your neighbor said “some magical invisible being put that boulder there because of some mysterious plan that we aren’t allowed to question further”?
Again, so says you. You know nothing about the time before the universe existed, so you don’t know if existence and nothingness were both valid possibilities or not. Saying it was God’s will is another way of saying you don’t know.
Lots of people are duped all the time. I’d say it was a natural state of affairs one needs to question no further. However, explanation 1 has this nasty little clause “God exists” that has been hotly debated for centuries. I’d say 1 is more iffy, but that’s just me.
Sorry, but you cannot put the words “prove or disprove” on anequal footing when discussing the existencve of God.
In logical debate, he who alleges must prove. Nobody has to prove the existence of God. It is up to those who claim he exists to prove it.
I cannot disprove the existence of Leprechauns in Ireland. It is up to people who say they exist to present evidence that will convince a reasonable person.
A corollary of this concept is: That whch is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But, just as in your other thread, you are the one making an unprovoked assertion–ie, that God does not exist. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that God does not exist. You’ve already admitted you can’t do that.
Here are two more examples of the use of Occam’s razor:
Valteron does not reply to every point brought up by ITR because when he sees a logical refutation of his arguments he just ignores them;
-or-
2) Valteron reads everything ITR says but finds most of the points are not that logical or supported and has only so much time to answer each tortured, illogical objection. For example, I note that Tomndeb has already dealt with your contention about the moral differences between atheists and theists.
To me, sheer lack of time makes a lot of sense as an answer. However, I will deal with the choices you have offered me about Christianity at the end of your post…
First of all, there is a third hypothesis about Jesus. Namely, that he was not the Son of God because there is no God, but no, he did not try to dupe people. He was a rabbi who taught some interesting ideas that went against the establishment and was crucified for it. And then his followers attributed divinity and miracles to him over the years in gospels written many, many years after his death.
You seem to be implying that the fact that Christianity grew and acquired many adherents is somehow proof that Jesus really was divine and the Christian religion true.
Would you apply the same reasoning to the growth of Islam? Are you a Muslim, ITR?
Let’s take your paragraph above and recast it, shall we?
Either Mohammed and the Koran are truly inspired by God and people follow these religions because it is logical to do so, or else 2) Mohammed misled people who have misled others, in a religion that is as vigourous as ever today.
Explanation 2 is absurdly complicated. It requires the explainer to continually introduce more and more entities to patch up the obvious contradictions. How did Mohammed dupe so many people? Well, the people were stupid. Then how did those stupid people manage to convince so many others that Mohammed was God’s final messenger? Well those stupid people were also really smart, smart enough to organize the world’s most successful campaign of mass deception. And how did a campaign of mass deception manage to overtake over a billion people in dozens of countries? They did it by violence. Then how did Islam triumph over rival belief systems that were far more violent? They did something or other. &c… &c…Obviously explanation 1 must be the correct one due to its simplicity, while explanation 2 constantly requires more and more factors. (The fact than none of the individual factors make any sense puts the final nail in 2’s coffin.) That’s how Occam’s razor works
Neither has the existence of Leprechauns in Ireland ever been disproven. It is up to those who assert that God exists to prove it. You cannot ask someone to prove that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster do not exist.
That which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Astrology and witch-burning have been or are accepted by millions of intelligent people.
To use an example closer to religion, millions of intelligent Muslims believe that Jesus was NOT the Son of God and millions of intelligent Chrsitians believe that he WAS the Son of God. Obviously, one group of millions of intelligent people believe something that is untrue.
Unless you can find a way for two contradictory propositions to be both right, you will have to concede, Oakminister, that it is possible for millions of intelligent people to believe something that is false.
I have never said otherwise. However, you relied on millions of intelligent people being atheists as support for your position. The millions on the otherside pretty much negate that from weighing heavily either way.
Sorry, that was a typo. I obviously meant to say that I do not have to prove that God does NOT exist.
Now, you seem to be saying that because I made the “unprovoked assertion” that God does not exist, I have to prove it.
However, if you read my OP, you will note that what I am saying is that it is simpler and more logical to believe in an uncreated universe than an uncreated God who made the universe. That is the subject of this thread.
Since I am not allowed to use the word “bullying” I will respectfully ask you to remain with the subject of the thread and not to find tortured and nit-sized details in my thread and keep flooding me with posts about these irrelevant details.
Also, you kind willingness to offer me advice to raise me to your level of ability in terms of logic and argument, as you did in the previous thread, is much appreciated but unecessary.
In otherwords, when indulging in speculation about an unknowable topic, it is more logical to agree with you, because…um…you really think so. I find that “logic” somewhat less than persuasive.
The question should be stated as "why does the universe exist now. Certainly, in some sort of meta-time, there was time when the universe did not exist. (Our time is tied into the universe, so the question is meaningless in relation to our time.) However, since by definition there could be no entity to ask the question without a universe, the very question of why the universe exists implies that the universe does exist.
I for one agree with ITR. There is a difference in morality, attitude, and behavior between atheists and theists. Atheists are more moral, have a better attitude and behave better than theists on average.
So why don’t you try to dispute his premise instead of saying logically absurd and incorrect things about the burden of proof - things that have been refuted by both atheists and theists thousands of times around here.
If he ever comes up with something worthy of a thoughtful response, he’ll get it. As long as he keeps leaving gaping holes in his arguments, I’ll just drive the trucks through them. I agree the whole evangelical atheism thing has been done to death here. That’s sorta my point.
My proposition was that it is more logical to beleieve in an ancreated universe tahn an uncreated God (who then created the universe). If you would like to particpate in that debate you are welcome, Oakminster.
Since I am not allowed to use the “b” word I will leave my response there.
Yes, but that doesn’t make the question illogical or invalid - it just indicates that you’re not interested in it. The question “Did the universe in which we now find ourselves, have to come into existence at all? - couldn’t it just have failed to happen?” is perfectly valid, and not even uninteresting.
Valteron: This is not intended as polemic, but as historical, with reference to this Board. It’s been the general consensus of people participating in Great Debates that the OP (and his supporters) must defend or support his stated hypothesis – not that he may advance something and require others to prove the contrary. If you were to propose, say (to take a less-than-hot-button topic), that the entire continent should become officially bilingual as Canada is now, the onus would be on you to prove that this would be advantageous to people generally, not on those disagreeing to prove that it would not be.
You have every right to advance the idea that there is no satisfactory proof that God exists. Or in a thread started by a theist beginning with that premise, to require him to prove it. But by longstanding tradition here, the burden of proof is on you in this thread to demonstrate why an uncreated universe is more logical than an uncreated God. And the rest of us are free to challenge your premises.
Kindly do not feel dumped on by others – we’re doing what is SOP for Great Debates, not intentionally dissing you. Though I do want to say, while I was offensive in suggesting bigotry, that I do take offense in having my views and those of my church lumped in with homophobic Catholicism of several decades ago (and perhaps still prevalent at least in some places) and fundamentalists, for the vehemence with which I object to their offensive attitudes I have been taken to task by badchad in the past.
I’m a liberal Episcopalian (Anglican, your side of the border). The only times your sexuality will be important at my church are: (1) should you plan to formalize your marriage through a service of holy matrimony, or otherwise do something as a couple*, (2) we’d be proud to stand beside you combatting anti-gay sentiment, and (3) if one of the teens from the youth group is having problems dealing with being gay, you’d be the obvious person to help him through it, speaking from experience.
Feel free to continue attempting to demonstrate that I am superstitious, self-deluded, etc. (Not brainwashed or unthinking: I’ve been at some pains to show that my Christianity is an informed choice.) But don’t tar me with the same brush you use to paint those who will to harm you. We’ve taken a stand for what’s right: inclusiveness, affirmation, your right to dignity and peace in your relationship. And in a small way we’ve suffered for it: our parish lost some members, our diocese a substantial amount of people and financial support. But we’ll keep standing for truth and decency on that issue – even if you insist on hating us nonetheless.
Example: It’s traditional for the four Sundays in Advent for a family together to lead the lighting of the Advent wreath, with two members sharing the short reading and another lighting the candle(s). Last year one of those families was a very sweet Lesbian couple.
Thank you, Polycarp, but I do not believe that has anything really to do with the subject of this thread.
My stated hypothesis is that it is more logical to believe in an uncreated universe that has always existed than to believe in an uncreated God (who then would have gone on to create the universe).
And with all due respect, I believe I have gone on to defend it adequately.
I have not felt that anyone was dumping on me. Oakminster’s posts are another matter. I have becopme used to his technique from the other thread and I do not let him get to me.
Even people of religion have admitted to me that there is no solid proof of God’s existence. I guess that is why they call it faith.
But I am in danger of hijacking my own thread, because I did not necessarily argue that God does not exist, in my OP. My contention is that if we apply the principle of Occam’s Razor to the question of the origins of the material universe, the simplest idea is that it has always existed and needs no creator to account for it.
Probably the second-simplest explanation after that is to say that the Universe was created by God, but that God always existed and is uncreated.
If an uncreated universe is absurd, in your opinion, then postulating the existence of a God who created it does not erase that absurdity, but simply moves it up one level from an uncreated universe to an uncreated God.
My other point is that if we have to choose between an eternal, uncreated universe and a universe created by an eternal, uncreated God, then one should remember that the universe’s existence and the permanence of matter are things that we are fairly certain of.
The concept that there exists a God can indeed be inferred, or even postulated based on a hunch or intuition, but belief in God is ultimately dependent on faith, which consists of believing something without evidence. This is why religions call themselves “faith communities”.
Finally, I fail to see why you are devoting so much time to questions regarding my sexual orientation, since that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Fair enough. I’d take exception to “believing without evidence” – we feel that we do in fact have evidence, albeit not of a form that would convince you or even perhaps stand up well to skeptical assault. But otherwise your points are solid. My take on it is, sure an uncreated universe is plausible – not eternal strictly, but in accordance with current cosmology: time and space begin at the moment of the Big Bang; “before the Big Bang” is as meaningless as “north of the North Pole” or “colder than absolute zero.” And the physical universe is suggestive of a God to me, in that there’s no inherent reason why the laws of the universe act as they do, why a proton is 1807 times the weight of an electron, etc. But not demonstrative of the point, by any means.
However, if you have an array of evidence suggestive of the idea that some supernatural being, variously but semi-consistently described, did interact with people at diverse times and plaees, and that that matches your own experience of Him and the testimony of others who claim to have had theophanic experiences – then “least hypothesis” and “parsimony of assumptions” calls for the minimal explanation of a universe in which God is present … and that is that He claims He created it.
We’re working the same principles, with varying data sets and varying criteria for evidence.
And the only reason I’ve addressed your sexuality is that you yourself brought it into religion debates in another thread, asserting that Christianity (seemingly, as a monolithic whole in your conception) was condemning it, and you for being gay. Ergo, I felt called to point out that my branch of it, at least, does not hold that view. My apologies for any offense that raising the subject may have caused you; it was merely that you had expressed a view I felt called on to answer.
