does God exist?

Great Debates
41

Speaking of tautology…

How will this instance ever be offered, practically speaking? What I mean is, no matter what is offered, because of the tautological nature of the universe, you can shoot it down one way or another. First, you will determine whether there is, within your own understanding, a reasonable explanation. Failing that, you will consult other experts to see if they can explain. If they can’t, you will simply (and rightly) say that the inability to explain an occurence does not equate to an intervention from God. So, how will it be done?

42

Please state the last time that God ‘intervened’. Remember we only want ONE instance …

/B]
[/QUOTE]

you will have to search, last time i read about it was in the paper - some guy fell out of a block of flats in spain, high up- his mum prayed to some saint, he hit the floor, no breaks, no problems… ambulance staff completely baffled.

Saint may be dead BUT does not mean miracle is not a miracle.

Instead of trying to prove god does exist perhaps you should ask them to prove he doesn’t, big bang ???mmm very shaky idea, no way to check etc. etc.

43

Liberterian

Your arguement is a valid syllogism. The particular syllogism you used is a classic example modus ponens. Modus ponens a perfectly valid arguement, if the premesis are accepted. Modus ponens has the form:

p
p -> q
q

In your arguement p is the statement “Love exists.” I have no problem with this premise. q is the statement “God exists.” It is the statement p -> q, “Love exists implies God exists”, that I have a problem with. Arnold Winkelried’s arguement is the same as yours and just as (un)convincing.

Another classic arguement is modus tollens (^ means “not”)

p -> q
^q
^p

An relevant example of modus tollens is the following:

With God all things are possible.
Some things are just not possible.
God does not exist.

Convincing? . . . No? I didn’t think so.

44

Yes, if there is a reasonable explanation, I think that’s more likely than an ‘undetectable omnipotent being’. (Occam’s razor).
Consulting experts is also reasonable.
But your third case is a straw man. No, I won’t say that. If something happens that our current scientific theories can’t explain, then I want an explanation. If God is the answer, that will be fine.
Science is not a religion, it’s a way of testing things so we can understand them. I believe in the scientific method - I can also believe in omnipotent beings : ** provided I have some evidence! **

OK, dude, the scientific method involves looking at evidence and using it to justify theories. If new contradictory evidence comes to light, you have to come up with a new theory that explains it all. That approach is for example what lead to us being able to communicate here (using computers and the Web).
If we stuck with the Church methods, the earth would still be the centre of the universe.
Having said that, let’s use the scientific method on your post.

Please give some information on your Spanish miracle. How far did he fall? On to what surface?
Next, presumably we can all save lives by a quick prayer once we see a tragedy about to happen. If not, why did the Saint intervene on behalf of this particular person?
Also consider the negative evidence. How many times have people prayed, and the tragedy still happened? Where was God then?

My problem with Saints being dead is that it’s difficult to check that any miracle actually happened, since by definition it happened a long time ago, and you can’t ask the person who supposedly performed it.
Please don’t be offended by the next bit - I have discussed it with the Chaplain at my School, and he agrees it’s perfectly proper.
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
If so, then no current science can explain it, and since it was predicted as part of the religion, that will do for me as a miracle, proving God’s existence.
If not, then Christianity is still worthwhile moral advice (New Testament anyway), but there’s no reason to believe in God.
OK, the only evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is the Gospels. (If you have a deeply held personal experience, I’m glad for you, but I haven’t had one.)
The Gospels were written 30 - 100 years after the event, and in them several people tell the authors they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.
Well, I’m sorry, but second-hand eye-witness accounts decades after an event do not make me believe in God.

You should have seen many arguments by now covering why you need to prove God exists, not the other way around.
If you haven’t try this.
There is an invisible alien hovering behind you right now, as you read these words. Go on, prove there isn’t!
The person responsible for claiming something is true should provide some evidence.
I’m sorry you doubt the Big Bang. I’m not a cosmologist, but I understand that astronomical observations show that the Galaxies are spreading out, and this leads to the theory of an explosion in the distant past.
You can check this evidence for yourself.
If only miracles were tested in the same way…

45

Glee,

One of our Catholic theologians can probably correct me, but I believe that the miracles the Catholic Church looks to are contemporary and the proposed Saint is already dead…i.e. I pray to Mother Theresa (not yet a Saint) to heal my mothers incurable cancer, cancer goes into remission, hey, Mother Theresa must be in heaven and able to intercede.) The living do not perform miracles (except, JC himself).

The Church’s requirements for said miracles are pretty stringent, they perform an investigation, look for other causes (i.e. the chemotherapy mom was on, the prognosis of the cancer), and few proposed miracles are deemed to be such. The Church actually does a very good job of trying to find a more common cause - or every potato that looked like the Virgin would be a miracle.

And we’ve come a long way from the 16th century - hey the Pope is an evolutionist.

But I’m an agnostic - and my CCD classes were a very long time ago.

46

Dr. Matrix:

Well, your p -> q, assuming you’re using “->” to indicate implication, is one part of a modus ponens, but a modus ponens would be the entire inference, “If p, then q; p, therefore q.” A modus tollens would be an inference of the form, “If p, then q; not q, therefore not p.”

My syllogism (actually, Arnold’s) did not contain the implication you’ve referenced. It did not go, “Love exists. Love exists implies God exists. Therefore, God exists.” It went, “God is love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.” Here, there are exactly three terms. The predicate term is in the second premise, and the subject term is in the first premise, hence, if I recall correctly, it is a second figure universal affirmative mood categorical syllogism.

Glee:

But how will you show that God is the answer?

Ockham wrote, “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.” Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. To leave out a necessary entity is just as much a violation of his Razor as is introducing an unnecessary one. When you end up with “I don’t know” as your answer, you can neither posit nor disposit God. In other words, you still do not prove His existence by the inability to explain an apparent miracle any other way.

Your insistence on applying the scientific method in your search for God is itself a violation of Ockham’s Razor. The scientific method cannot hold for a set of one. Because your consciousness is a closed reference frame (can anyone else experience your consciousness?), your experience is not repeatable by anyone else. Therefore, unless God is made of atoms, the scientific method, for the purpose of verifying a subjective experience, is not only unnecessary, but useless.

47

I challenge your first premise. How do we know God is love? (I am happy to agree Love exists!).

As I said earlier, Jesus rising from the dead would satisfy me. Christianity predicted it, so that becomes the most likely explanation.

What?! Occam’s razor is a helpful part of the scientific method (helping to decide what hypotheses to investigate first etc).
I don’t know what you mean by a ‘set of one’. One cause? No problem. One set of observations? Scientists certainly want more than that! One effect? Still no problem ((masses move .
I agree the scientific method probably doesn’t work with purely subjective experiences. But the Bible says God can influence the world (bolts of fire, parting the waves - creating the whole thing).
If despite all this you insist God is not material, then perhaps he only exists in your imagination. (I’m not trying to insult your beliefs, but I think this does follow logically).

48

Nothing less than Perfect Love is worthy of worship.

Well then, you’re satisfied. That’s fine.

I couldn’t agree more, except to say that Ockham’s Razor is a helpful part of everything. It is helpful, for example, in determining what is worthy of worship. Think of Perfect Love as the basis for a personality attribute set, and go from there.

One consciousness. See the sentence following the set of one reference. Here it is, for your convenience: “Because your consciousness is a closed reference frame [a set of one] … your experience is not repeatable by anyone else.”

We found common ground.

I don’t feel insulted. I think you’re one of the more civil debators here, in fact.

I don’t presume to defend the Bible. I don’t worship the Bible. Having said that, it is not necessary (Ockham!) that an entity be material in order to affect the material universe. In fact, the universe itself is not material at its most fundamental level until a wave collapses.

You and I simply have different perspectives, each in our own closed consciousness, of the same events. When a man gives charity to the poor, which was the real material effect, the goods or his love? Without the latter, the former would still be hoarded. If you demand that God prove something to you, as though you had just popped Him out of a bottle, you will be sorely disappointed. He is a Moral Being. He is Spirit.

49

Libertarian,

thank you for the polite debate (at least we showed how to do it!).

I think it’s clear that you passionately believe in God, and I strongly believe in the scientific method. Also that they don’t overlap - so perhaps we should leave it there (at least in this thread).

Bye for now…

50

Libertarian says “If there is a supernatural god who exists outside you, I can’t offer any advice on how to find him. But the God I found was within me. According to Him, He is within you, too. Search there.”
I repeat my previous objection. If the nature of god is determined by my personal bias(es), then I don’t see how this abstraction fits the definition of god.

51

I occasionally have some cavils with the way Lib expresses his premises, though I agree with all of them (the theological ones, at least – We’ve had some disagreements about the proper role of government, and I’ll never make a good Objectivist)

Which brings me to the point that, unless you can agree on a set of axioms that could judge the validity of the proposition of a god described as having created all – a difficult proposition – then your sole source of proof must be through inductive reasoning. (David B. would, for example, suggest that the traditional view of God is not borne out by the findings of science. My rejoinder would be that they’re not looking in the right places – he is not to be found within the disciplines of present-day science.)

Now, inductive reasoning about a given entity requires subjective evaluation of the evidence available. You, me, an atheist, and a fundamentalist have the same array of evidence – but we evaluate it differently.

It would therefore be my proposition that any “analytical proof of god” – or any disproof, for that matter – would inevitably be found lacking – because, IMO, humanity lacks the capacity to evaluate matters relative to godhood. One cannot comprehend God; he’s too multifoliate an entity to be completely known. One can apprehend him, know him as another entity like unto oneself but far greater, and worthy of one’s obedience and love. This approach, however, is one of faith in the strict sense – knowing someone and putting one’s trust in that person – not one of logical proof.

52

Glee:

I have no choice but to believe in God at this point since, having sought Him out, He has become an integral part of my experience. I could no more not believe in God than I could not believe in my wife.

I believe also in the scientific method, despite whatever inferences might have been taken to the contrary. But God is not made of atoms, and the universe is not made of Love.

I guess I’m sort of like a bisexual, or something. I can appreciate the best of both worlds! :smiley:

Arnold:

His nature is not determined by your personal bias. His nature is Love. When I say to look within you, I don’t mean to look within your brain. That’s not where He is. Look within your heart. The kind of Love we’re talking about — perfect morality, endless forgiveness, terrifying beauty — these things are discovered by trust, not reason. You won’t find them anywhere in the atoms.

Poly:

I realize that I’m “way out there” in terms of Christian theology, and I appreciate your tolerance.

53

I wish you’d quit using the term reference frame like this. It just an abstract mathematical tool, you know. See Britannica. All it is is a means of locating something. (Longitude and latitude on the surface of the Earth; X,Y,Z coordinates in 3-D space.) There’s also the Special Theory of Relativity.

Where did you get the idea that consciousness was a reference frame, open or closed? Applying physics and mathematics to theology is like trying to do open-heart surgery with carpenter’s tools.

So is logic. If God can do anything, He can violate (or transcend) the laws of logic and exist in spite of (or defiance of) them. (I prefer to believe there is not anything that can defy logic. The world makes more sense that way.)

54

In your opinion. Other people worship other things, you know; power, for one thing.

Why not? How does the immaterial affect the material?

You’re talking about de Broglie waves, or matter waves, right?

**

Let’s say 50,000 people attend a particular baseball game today. By the time the game is over, there will be 50,000 different perspectives on the game, 50,000 different experiences, 50,000 different sets of memories. However, the people who believe one team won when it was the other will be wrong. There is an objective reality and those who interpret it incorrectly are wrong. (Though it may not be their fault. Let’s be charitable.)

55

Jab:

That’s why you’re one of my favorite atheists.

As Spiritus likely could explain, I use “reference frame” in these philosophical discussions in the sense of a “frame of reference.” But I once had to explain to David B that when I advised him to search his heart, I did not mean for him to surgically examine his chambered muscular organ, so I don’t mind explaining this to you.

From the dictionary, I’m talking about the second definition:

[quote]

frame of reference (frm v rfr-ns)
n., pl. frames of reference.

[ol]
[li]A set of coordinate axes in terms of which position or movement may be specified or with reference to which physical laws may be mathematically stated.[/li][li]A set of ideas, as of philosophical or religious doctrine, in terms of which other ideas are interpreted or assigned meaning.[/ol][/li][/quote]

Note the interchangeability of the two terms, from the same source:

I like your baseball game analogy because it is a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Science can verify the score of the game, and that’s nice. I mean that. I like science, and I think it’s good that scores can be verified for people who like scores.

All I’m saying is that the score alone, naked and contextless, is not why people went to the game, and doesn’t really tell us much about ourselves, or even about the game. If it did, there would not even need to be a game per se. We could just have everyone come to the park, and watch technicians change the numbers on the scoreboard every so often. Players are not necessary, since the 50,000 people are simply interested that each sees the same numbers up there beside the clock.

What is far more important, in my opinion, is the 50,000 different subjective reference frames that yielded 50,000 different interpretations of the game. The game. When they leave, they are changed (or not) not because of what was objective, but because of what was subjective. The homerun in the ninth? One felt dispair, another felt rapture, another yawned, another missed it and hated himself, another was masturbating, another caught the ball, another wrestled it out of his hand, another was the player’s father and felt an ineffable pride, another was critical of the player’s technique despite the homerun, another saw an analogy in the play and was inspired to construct a poem, another…

Taking out my strawman broom pre-emptively, I am not dissing the science of man. I am extolling the spirit of man. They do not have to conflict. Each has its own purpose, and I agree with you that neither ought to be used to quantify — or qualify! — the other.

Got it?

56

It may or may not be a tautology, but it sure sounds similar to the ontological proof, as I remember it:

God is perfect. Nonexistence is an imperfection. Therefore, God exists.

Didn’t you start off advising against ontological proofs, Lib?

The problem with both proofs is that the first statement may be false, unless you take it as an axiom. In which case why not take “god exists” as an axiom? Either way you haven’t proven anything.

Try this one:

Phlogiston is the sole cause of combustion. Combustion exists. Therefore, phlogiston exists.

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

OK.

Riiight. OK. The human brain, the crown of creation, the creator ignores.

Makes perfect sense to me. It didn’t before the lobotomy, but it does now.

Pesky, pesky rational thought. Just follow your hearts, kids.

58

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

You have a deeply divergent view of the universe than I have. The Giver of Life=Love?

The Giver of Life makes the Marquis de Sade look a piker. A significant number of several million Jews & homosexuals who recieved the gift of life a hundred years ago & grew up to see the fruition of National Socialism would not consider this Love.

Life is suffering. If God exists, He’s even more friggin twisted than I am.

No promise of some future paradise
is going to wipe away
the tear of today.

59

thank you very much for helping me in this debate. actually i haven’t read all your messages because there are so many. but i’ll try to read them all because i badly need it.
thanks again!

60

Yes, indeed. I also said, “Neither God’s existence, nor His nonexistence can be objectively proved.”

If you thought I was offereing Arnold Winkelried’s paraphrase of my response to his extrapolation of my answer to Glee’s obervation about my initial unmorphed statement, which was “Besides, why would you look for the Living among the dead; i.e., why would you seek physical evidence of something Spiritual?”, then you are simply mistaken.

I don’t offer any proof whatsoever of God’s existence, other than my personal experience and the testimony of others. As I said, I have all the evidence I need.

I do, as long-time posters know.

If the human brain were the crown of creation, the problem of hunger would be solved. We know what people need to eat, and we know how to produce and distribute it.

Don’t forget the gypsies. In fact, don’t even forget those who are in prison for their poverty and illiteracy right here in the U.S. But if you think the life God gives is molecular duplication, then you think God is incredibly impotent and foolhardy. Who would place his faith in an entity that came down through the ages to rule an anthill for a day?