Reasons for belief and disbelief in God

[Trust]

Let me give an example since people learn best by example. I will propose the way we should look at new concepts.

Take the concept of reincarnation. I first start out completely undecided. Now being realistic, we know that we indeed do have some sort of bias towards reincarnation. We try our best to let go of all bias’ and look at the concept from every angle.

I first start out by looking up what reincarnation is. Then I start to think about how likely reincarnation could be and the implications that reincarnation would have on our lives. Fine, no problems yet. Now here comes the main point of everything I am trying to say so please think about this My first inclination is that reincarnation is not logical. I come to this conclusion because, if the universe started with x number of beings, then how can there be so many more beings today rather than x. Now here is the point. just because I came up with an inconsistency with the logic, does not mean that the person who I am talking to has inconsistent logic. The reason being, I dont know everything he believes. Therefore, I need to first find out what extra things he believes that gets rid of the inconsistent logic. I really do not know what the majority view on reincarntion would be, but I can come up with a logical answer on my own: Say that God lets people go to heaven once they reach a certain spiritual level. Now, it does not matter how likely this is to happen. Either way, if this is what he believes, then the logical inconsistency is gone. In this exact same way, every logical inconsistency you think I have, I have none. While you simply think my point of view is less likely, there is nothing wrong with the logic. But, if he did not have that extra belief that people can reach heaven, then his belief would not be logical because then more beings would come out of nowhere.. Do you get it?

I am 100 percent fine with you thinking my viewpoint is less likely. What I do have a problem with is people saying that there is logical inconsistencies when there are none. You are simply basing your viewpoint on your little assumptions that you know about what I believe. if you are not me, then how can you expect to know everything that I believe, and thus know whether there is anything wrong with my logic? Unfortunately I feel like I have to remind people that I am being accused of being illogical with no proof shown. The only proof shown has been people who ASSUME they know what I believe.

[mswas]

@CJJ*

I agree with Diogenes’ argument in general–it is a fallacy to argue that non-belief be justified via a mechanism similar to belief–but there is one specific case that gives me pause. The existence of the universe itself argues strongly for the existence of a creator being; in short, I find Aristotle’s first cause argument to be not only convincing, but also sufficiently logical that the burden of proof is on the non-believer to refute it.

Let me also point out that this argument by itself does little to prove even that God exists now, much less support the accretion of logical inconsistency that surrounds the Christian concept of God. But it appears to me a good starting point for Theistic arguments, and a strong impediment for non-believers to overcome. In the spirit of the original thread title, I’d be interested in opinions as to why such an argument is illogical or unconvincing.

Well the problem with arguments against God using science is that people are asking you prove that a word means what you think it means. In this case it happens to be a word that is open to subjective interpretation. When people define God they are both right and wrong. As all things are made up of God and God’s will/consciousness defining it by a single perspective is catching only glimpse of it and doesn’t take the whole into account. As we are limited to a single perspective, we cannot possibly hope to relate the entirety of such an expansive concept via words to someone who does not want to see it that way. God by definition exists, there is a creative force that does shape the universe, by typing on this keyboard I am giving you evidence that an intelligent creative force shaped the universe. When you respond to me, you are showing me evidence that an intelligent creative force shaped the universe. If this is not sufficient evidence for someone that there is a such a thing as an intelligent creative force, and they cannot see it when a baby is born, or when they look at the stars, when they see a plant grow from a seedling, then there is no conceivable way to possibly offer up proof for them.

Erek

[Trust]

@Der Trihs

Incorrect. It’s the person asserting the existence of something who must prove it. That’s true of every thing from new species to fairies to crimes; religious people simply insist that their religion is a special case, and it’s not.

Then you are arguing for being agnostic. If you want something to not be true, according to your definition, you must also prove that it is not true. We do not start out believing anything. We must believe or disbelieve something based on evidence. The reason we are discussing this still now is because there is not one shred of scientific evidence either way. Before you jump to the conclusion that there is evidence, I strongly urge you to reconsider your viewpoint. We have reasons for what we believe. We have no scientific evidence for or against God that even come close to proving one or the other. There is nothing that proves that God does not exist. There is nothing that proves that God exists. I admit both ways. Unfortunately for the straight dope, the straight dope is not about admiting the facts. The straight dope is about sticking to your first inclination. Never once have I seen one person admit they were wrong on this forum. Never once have I seen someone admit the facts, even when they bring down their own case. Not once. Even though we call this the straight dope forum, it’s plain to see that noone gives the straight dope. We only agree with those who agree with us. So much for fighting ignorance.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Trust, the word “agnostic” doesn’t mean what you think it does. Agnostic does not mean “undecided.” Agnosticism is the position that it’s impossible to know something. A simple absence of belief in gods is called “atheism.”

With regard to theistic belief. You are mistaken at the outset if you think the proper logical default is to be “undecided” and this to be a question with logically equivalent or plausible answers. The logical default is to assume that X does not exist until somebody proves that it does.

Do you start off “undecided” about the existence of werewolves or Ewoks? Do you think that non-belief in those things needs to be “rationalized” or “justified?”

The proposition that “sky gods exist” has no more prima facie plausibility than the proposition that smurfs exist.

[mswas]

@Trust

Let me give an example since people learn best by example. I will propose the way we should look at new concepts.

Take the concept of reincarnation. I first start out completely undecided. Now being realistic, we know that we indeed do have some sort of bias towards reincarnation. We try our best to let go of all bias’ and look at the concept from every angle.

I first start out by looking up what reincarnation is. Then I start to think about how likely reincarnation could be and the implications that reincarnation would have on our lives. Fine, no problems yet. Now here comes the main point of everything I am trying to say so please think about this My first inclination is that reincarnation is not logical. I come to this conclusion because, if the universe started with x number of beings, then how can there be so many more beings today rather than x. Now here is the point. just because I came up with an inconsistency with the logic, does not mean that the person who I am talking to has inconsistent logic. The reason being, I dont know everything he believes. Therefore, I need to first find out what extra things he believes that gets rid of the inconsistent logic. I really do not know what the majority view on reincarntion would be, but I can come up with a logical answer on my own: Say that God lets people go to heaven once they reach a certain spiritual level. Now, it does not matter how likely this is to happen. Either way, if this is what he believes, then the logical inconsistency is gone. In this exact same way, every logical inconsistency you think I have, I have none. While you simply think my point of view is less likely, there is nothing wrong with the logic. But, if he did not have that extra belief that people can reach heaven, then his belief would not be logical because then more beings would come out of nowhere.. Do you get it?

I am 100 percent fine with you thinking my viewpoint is less likely. What I do have a problem with is people saying that there is logical inconsistencies when there are none. You are simply basing your viewpoint on your little assumptions that you know about what I believe. if you are not me, then how can you expect to know everything that I believe, and thus know whether there is anything wrong with my logic? Unfortunately I feel like I have to remind people that I am being accused of being illogical with no proof shown. The only proof shown has been people who ASSUME they know what I believe.

You are assuming that

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed
2. Souls work by the same properties as energy

What if the soul is the pattern? People collect matter in order to produce an offspring. Energy can be subdivided and even shared by patterns. My matter is part of me but what if I am the reincarnation of multiple souls? Maybe those souls split and merge in the reincarnation process, but the patterns and archetypes created by the existance of people’s personalities are constantly churned by the soul energy that is the ‘Matrix’. Maybe there are further incarnations that people can achieve after leaving the Earth. What about energy beings living in the light of the Sun? I suppose that might be the Heaven to which you refer, but who says souls cannot incarnate in different forms in transit from place to place. Maybe they pop in for a narrative once in a while.

Also time and space are completely relative to the objects that are being compared to one another by which we measure the dimensions. So reincarnation might not be a 1 to 1 ratio of matter and energy as a human being is not the same matter that s/he was when when she was born 80 years later when s/he dies.

I don’t think that the same laws apply to the pattern as apply to the law of conservation of energy. Perhaps Reincarnation is simply a matter of getting hit with the memories that are echoing around inside the atmosphere, and then we associate with that being by virtue of some compatibility.

So I think your logic is flawed by applying a physical law to a metaphysical entity. It’s like how “word” is only a single word no matter how many times it is used, it doesn’t become a multiplicy of words just because it’s used again, it’s still the same word that it always was. We have multiple words, but they are different because we add letters to them, but there is still only one letter “A”, with myriad representations in the physical matter. So A is reincArnAted every time we use A word thAt hAs the letter A in it, without being subject to the lAw of conservAtion of mAtter And energy, even though I am using multiple electrons to send this to you this single sentence to you, A sentence which will still be only one sentence no mAtter how mAny people reAd it.

[tomndebb]

@Trust

Unfortunately for the straight dope, the straight dope is not about admiting the facts. The straight dope is about sticking to your first inclination. Never once have I seen one person admit they were wrong on this forum. Never once have I seen someone admit the facts, even when they bring down their own case. Not once. Even though we call this the straight dope forum, it’s plain to see that noone gives the straight dope. We only agree with those who agree with us. So much for fighting ignorance.

The fact that you have never seen an event does not mean that the event has never happened. (It may not even mean that the event is rare–only that you have not chanced upon it in your rambles.)

While I will agree that it is not a frequent event (since most people have spent enough time thinking over their beliefs that they are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise from a message board discussion), it does, indeed, happen that people are persuaded that that a position they have held has been in error. It is even less rare to find a poster acknowledging that s/he was unaware of a specific fact.

If you spend most of your time hanging out in threads where facts are far rarer than beliefs, you are quite likely to miss those threads where facts have changed an argument and the minds of those arguing.

[Trust]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The problem of evil IS a logical problem and it’s a problem that no one has yet explained away.

Would you like to hear another logical problem with basic Christian doctrine?

What was the point of the crucifixion? What did it accomplish? Why was it required? What could God do after the crucifixion that he couldn’t do before the crucifixion? What does it mean to say that Jesus “died for our sins?” Why can’t we be forgiven without a human sacrifice?.

For the love of whatever you value, will you please stop taking shots in the dark. Do you honestly think that it is as simple as saying that Jesus is illogical? Please look at my comment above about how I would analyze reincarnation. Simply because I cannot understand how things work, does not mean they do not work.

To answer your question. The point was for God to still be just, and for us to be forgiven for our sins.

The first premise is that God is good. If God did not send Christ, then our sins (wrong doings to each other) could not go unpunished. Therefore, we would have to die. However, God is good. Therefore, Christ willingly gives Himself up. This means that God is just (since he didnt just let all the bullshit we went through from other people go unpunished) and He is good since He gave Himself up for us. I have never once heard of a possible explanation that God could use to get around being good, give us free will, AND still be a just God. If you have one then please share so we can stop this religion. Otherwise, 2000 years of trying to come up with anything illogical with the religion has brought up nothing. It will always come back to needing faith. If you admit that the entire belief in Christianty is based on faith, but at the same time is not illogical, then we are not disagreeing.

@Diogenes the Cynic

Christian salvation theology essentially amounts to a belief that God became a human and committed suicide in order to save his own creation from his own wrath. Why could he not just forgive everybody and be done with it? .

Something tells me you do not give the same amount of intellect towards religion as you do science. That would equate to a bias. If you thought about it, you would realize that the only possible way for God to be just AND be a good God, would be for Christ to give himself. Otherwise we would just die for our wrongdoings. If you are going to attempt to just throw things out, please save us both time by just admiting that you do not know enough about the doctrine to evaluate it as you would like. We are not getting anywhere by showing you how it works when you could figure this all out if you spent your time thinking about it.

@Diogenes the Cynic

Here’s another problem- if God will only save people who believe in Jesus, then why doesn’t he offer a shred of evidence that Christianity is true? Arguing that you “just know” from personal revelation is not really evidence. Adherents from every religion in the world acn say the same thing. What do you say to someone who knows for a fact that he has spoken to Kali? Do you believe that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel? How is your conviction about your personal exoerience any more valid than his?.

What does this have to do with showing that this is illogical. Once again, you are merely showing a reason why it is less likely that this happened. Not that it is illogical. Can you differentiate between the two?

@Diogenes the Cynic

Here’s a question to ponder considering personal revelation - why is it that no one ever receives a revelation from Jesus who didn’t already know who Jesus was? How come Jesus has never revealed himself to individuals who have never heard of Christianity? Why didn’t he ever talk to (pre-missionary) Bushmen in Australia or New Guinea? Why didn’t American Indians ever hear from him?.

Once again, less likely. Not illogical.

@Diogenes the Cynic

As to the defense that “faith” is for some reason either a virtue or a requirement, I have to ask why? Belief in Jesus only counts if you believe it without evidence? Talk about illogical. That just turns salvation into a guessing game. For some reason God will only save you if you correctly guess without evidence what religion is the true one? How capricious and senseless is that? It’s exactly the same as saying that in order to get to heaven, you have to guess what number God is thinking of between one and infinity. It’s ridiculous.

I do not necessarily follow that you have to believe in Christ in the sense that some Christians try and shove down peoples throats. I personally believe that we should simply follow what we genuinely believe. This means, we should NOT beleive because of tradition, or we should NOT believe because it is easier to not believe in God, and we should NOT believe because it is easier to believe in God. None of these reasons affect whether God does or does not exist. Hence, the entire reason for this thread.

[Trust]

@tomndebb

The fact that you have never seen an event does not mean that the event has never happened. (It may not even mean that the event is rare–only that you have not chanced upon it in your rambles.)

While I will agree that it is not a frequent event (since most people have spent enough time thinking over their beliefs that they are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise from a message board discussion), it does, indeed, happen that people are persuaded that that a position they have held has been in error. It is even less rare to find a poster acknowledging that s/he was unaware of a specific fact.

If you spend most of your time hanging out in threads where facts are far rarer than beliefs, you are quite likely to miss those threads where facts have changed an argument and the minds of those arguing.

This is the entire point I am trying to make and the entire problem I have with the straight dope. The only time straight dopers admit they were wrong is when they are held liable to their words since in scientific discussions since scientific facts are easily verified. We all know that when you talk about God it is not as easy to verify. A perfect example of this is how unwilling anyone (besides you just now ) is to admitting that simply because something seems less likely, does not make it illogical. This requires no belief and is a simple fact. Yet noone wants to admit it because they can change the subject simply by asking more unrelated questions about why religion “a” does not work from their limited knowledge.

[Der_Trihs]

@CJJ*

The existence of the universe itself argues strongly for the existence of a creator being; in short, I find Aristotle’s first cause argument to be not only convincing, but also sufficiently logical that the burden of proof is on the non-believer to refute it.

Not; it’s always the burden of the believer. It’s also a pointless reason to believe, since it just pushes the origin question back one level; where did God come from ? Since God is less plausible than a universe, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is more plausible than it’s creation by a god.

@Trust

We have no scientific evidence for or against God that even come close to proving one or the other.

Therefore, we should disbelieve in God. We do have evidence against a creator god, however; the messy, undesigned nature of the universe. There is also natural law, which has no room for a god. What evidence there is, is against religion.

There’s also the hisorical matter that religion has a long history of being wrong. The fact that a belief is religious means that is is almost certainly wrong. The fact that belief in God is religious is evidence against it.

[CJJ]

@Trust

Let me give an example since people learn best by example. I will propose the way we should look at new concepts…

(snip)

just because I came up with an inconsistency with the logic, does not mean that the person who I am talking to has inconsistent logic. The reason being, I dont know everything he believes. Therefore, I need to first find out what extra things he believes that gets rid of the inconsistent logic.

I’m not sure I follow the reincarnation example you give, but as to this main point, I think what you are saying is that a hole in someone’s reasoning does not mean their logic is flawed, just incomplete. On the surface I agree, although I am somewhat suspicious of an argument being advanced by someone who hasn’t examined all its hidden premises. I guess it would depend on how “gaping” the omission is and the arguer’s defensiveness in adressing them when they are exposed.

@Trust

I am 100 percent fine with you thinking my viewpoint is less likely. What I do have a problem with is people saying that there is logical inconsistencies when there are none. You are simply basing your viewpoint on your little assumptions that you know about what I believe. if you are not me, then how can you expect to know everything that I believe, and thus know whether there is anything wrong with my logic? Unfortunately I feel like I have to remind people that I am being accused of being illogical with no proof shown. The only proof shown has been people who ASSUME they know what I believe.

With all due respect, this is a little thin-skinned. If someone were to accuse me of being “illogical” when I believe that I was merely “unclear” or “assuming a premise”, I think I’d let that go and talk about the meat of the objection. Defensiveness is often interpreted as a sign that you recognize the inadequacies of your own argument; please take that advice in the friendly spirit it is intended.

[mhendo]

@Der Trihs

We do have evidence against a creator god, however; the messy, undesigned nature of the universe.

Despite being a hardened atheist myself, i believe that you are using spurious reasoning here.

Where you see a “messy undesigned” universe, many people see incredible order and harmony. You reasoning is no more sound, in this case, that the reasoning of someone who uses the perceived complexity of the universe to argue for intelligent design.

@Der Trihs

There is also natural law, which has no room for a god. What evidence there is, is against religion.

It is not necessarily true that natural law has no room for God. It is true that natural law assumes a universe that works on natural (rather than supernatural) principles, but this is not inconsistent, for example, with the tenets of deism.

@Der Trihs

There’s also the historical matter that religion has a long history of being wrong.

Again, this line of reasoning leaves you open to questions you might have trouble confronting.

If evidence of past error is a prime criterion for making judgments about a system of understanding the world, then science surely has some trouble in this regard.

You counterargument might be that science at least acknowledges its errors, learns from them, and moves forward, but i still don’t think you can so blithely escape the consequences of asguing that past error calls present validity into question.

[Voyager]

@CJJ*

I agree with Diogenes’ argument in general–it is a fallacy to argue that non-belief be justified via a mechanism similar to belief–but there is one specific case that gives me pause. The existence of the universe itself argues strongly for the existence of a creator being; in short, I find Aristotle’s first cause argument to be not only convincing, but also sufficiently logical that the burden of proof is on the non-believer to refute it.

Let me also point out that this argument by itself does little to prove even that God exists now, much less support the accretion of logical inconsistency that surrounds the Christian concept of God. But it appears to me a good starting point for Theistic arguments, and a strong impediment for non-believers to overcome. In the spirit of the original thread title, I’d be interested in opinions as to why such an argument is illogical or unconvincing.

That’s an excellent example, and probably the most convincing reason to believe in some god. However, as you point out, it says nothing about which god to believe in. Perhaps the universe was created for some aliens who all went to heaven 8 billion years ago, and we’re just living in the remnants of a universe god no longer cares about. Or the creator is a deistic god, who has nothing to do with us. Or our “god” is some alien graduate student who can create univeres from his, but cannot see into the universe he creates.

However the heart of the argument is that there are no uncaused events, and it appears that this is not true. There is no physical law against this, we see uncause events happen all the time, and if the energy in the universe sums to 0, there is no violation of the conservation laws.

We certainly don’t have the final answer to this issue, but it is certainly looking like the first cause argument does not necessarily work.

I have a challenge, never reasonably answered in nearly a decade, about getting from a first cause to the god of any earthly religion. I won’t ask you it, since you get that there is no connection.

[SentientMeat]

@CJJ

In the spirit of the original thread title, I’d be interested in opinions as to why such an argument is illogical or unconvincing.

I reject the fiirst premise, that everything has a cause. Causation is dependent upon time, specifically on there being a time when X is not the case and another time when X is the case.

Modern cosmology tells us that the universe has always existed, ie. there is never a time of no universe, nor any nothing-to-something transition. How can something that’s always been everywhere be “caused”?

[mswas]

@SentientMeat

I reject the fiirst premise, that everything has a cause. Causation is dependent upon time, specifically on there being a time when X is not the case and another time when X is the case.

Modern cosmology tells us that the universe has always existed, ie. there is never a time of no universe, nor any nothing-to-something transition. How can something that’s always been everywhere be “caused”?

Unless Cause itself is an entity, and is always shaping the universe in all times simultaneously, with the present being both the beginning and the end, from which the past and the future flow out rather than the present following a linear line from past to future. A universal will causing everything all at once.

Erek

[SentientMeat]

Like, whatever.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Trust

For the love of whatever you value, will you please stop taking shots in the dark. Do you honestly think that it is as simple as saying that Jesus is illogical? Please look at my comment above about how I would analyze reincarnation. Simply because I cannot understand how things work, does not mean they do not work.

This is not a question of “understanding how things work.” I’m am saying that it’s logically impossible for an omnipotent God to require a human sacrifice in order to forgive people?

To answer your question. The point was for God to still be just, and for us to be forgiven for our sins.

What’s “just” about nailing a guy to a stick for somebody else’s sins? What woukld be unjust about simply forgiving everybody regardless?

The first premise is that God is good.

A premise logically undermined by the existence of suffering.

If God did not send Christ, then our sins (wrong doings to each other) could not go unpunished.

Why couldn’t they? Why do they need to be punished? How does killing somebody eliminate that need?

Therefore, we would have to die.

Not if God is omnpotent. God doesn’t HAVE to do anything. God doesn’t need to follow any rules. He MAKES the rules and he can change them or ignore them whenever he pleases.

However, God is good.

Not if he’s omnipotent, he isn’t.

Therefore, Christ willingly gives Himself up. This means that God is just (since he didnt just let all the bullshit we went through from other people go unpunished) and He is good since He gave Himself up for us.

This is still logical gibberish. How does nailing some dude to a giant, lower-case t punish anyone else’s bad deeds? Why do bad deeds have to be punished at all? Even if all this is necessary, then why doesn’t God bother to let anybody know about it? Why is so much of his alleged revealed scripture demonstrably ahitirical, contradictory or false?

I have never once heard of a possible explanation that God could use to get around being good, give us free will, AND still be a just God.

You’ll have to explain why forgiving people as they are is unjust. You’ll also have to explain why God chooses to create people who will do evil when he is perfectly free not do so. Hitler is God’s fault. God didn’t have to make him, but he did so anyway, knowing full well what would happen. That makes God just as culpable for the holocaust as Hitler- even more so since God could have prevented it any time he wanted.

If you have one then please share so we can stop this religion.

I have no desire to stop this religion. I’m just pointing out why it’s illogical.

Otherwise, 2000 years of trying to come up with anything illogical with the religion has brought up nothing.

This just shows a willful ignorance of the facts. Plenty of logical inconsistencies have been pointed out in this thread and you haven’t refuted any of them.

It will always come back to needing faith. If you admit that the entire belief in Christianty is based on faith, but at the same time is not illogical, then we are not disagreeing.

On the second point we are indeed disagreeing.

Something tells me you do not give the same amount of intellect towards religion as you do science.

You don’t know much about me, then. I don’t know nearly as much about science as I do about religion. I majored in the subject in college. I’ve always sucked at science (I can’t do math),

If you thought about it, you would realize that the only possible way for God to be just AND be a good God, would be for Christ to give himself.

Amazing that so many other theistic religions have managed to exist for so long without such a belief. Could you please explain again how the murder of an itinerant Galilean Rabbi 2000 years ago makes it ok for David Berkowirz and Jeffrey Dahmer to go to heaven but not (according to strict Christian doctrine) Mohandas Gandhi or Albert Einstein?

Otherwise we would just die for our wrongdoings.

1. So what? Why would that be unjust or undesirable. I don’t want to live forever anyway.
2. Why would God HAVE to allow anything? Who makes the rules around here?

If you are going to attempt to just throw things out, please save us both time by just admiting that you do not know enough about the doctrine to evaluate it as you would like. We are not getting anywhere by showing you how it works when you could figure this all out if you spent your time thinking about it.

Heh. I promise you, I know the doctrine inside and out. I’m willing to bet that I know more about Christianity than you do.

[quote]
What does this have to do with showing that this is illogical. Once again, you are merely showing a reason why it is less likely that this happened. Not that it is illogical. Can you differentiate between the two?

@Diogenes the Cynic

Here’s another problem- if God will only save people who believe in Jesus, then why doesn’t he offer a shred of evidence that Christianity is true? Arguing that you “just know” from personal revelation is not really evidence. Adherents from every religion in the world acn say the same thing. What do you say to someone who knows for a fact that he has spoken to Kali? Do you believe that Mohammed spoke to the angel Gabriel? How is your conviction about your personal experience any more valid than his?

What does this have to do with showing that this is illogical. Once again, you are merely showing a reason why it is less likely that this happened. Not that it is illogical. Can you differentiate between the two?

I’m showing that your evidence for the existence of God is no evidence at all. The fact that God refuses to provide evidence of his existence is logically incompatible with the belief that he judges people by belief or that he wants people to believe in Jesus.

@Diogenes the Cynic

Here’s a question to ponder considering personal revelation - why is it that no one ever receives a revelation from Jesus who didn’t already know who Jesus was? How come Jesus has never revealed himself to individuals who have never heard of Christianity? Why didn’t he ever talk to (pre-missionary) Bushmen in Australia or New Guinea? Why didn’t American Indians ever hear from him?.

Once again, less likely. Not illogical.

Adain, I was just showing that personal “revelation” is not useful evidence and that the lack of evidence for God’s existence is logically incompatible with any notion that a God who is good cares anything about religious belief (or “faith,” if you will).

I do not necessarily follow that you have to believe in Christ in the sense that some Christians try and shove down peoples throats.

Excellent. So there is no need for faith or worship then? Do you believe there is any reason to try to convert other peopel to Christianity? Any reason for witnessing? Any reason for Christianity to exist at all?

I personally believe that we should simply follow what we genuinely believe.

Isn’t this kind of circular? Is there anyone who does not believe what he truly believes?

[quoteThis means, we should NOT beleive because of tradition[/quote]

Agreed.

or we should NOT believe because it is easier to not believe in God

This is not am actual reason that people don’t believe in God. Your constant suggestions that people without theistic beliefs are just petulent children who don’t want to follow God’s rules are not only insulting (something which most atheists learn to live rather easily with) but inaccurate in a way which is actually self-contradictory. It implies that atheists secretly DO believe in God but just don’t want to play ball. You’re saying that only sincere disbelief is a justified reason for disbelief (whatever that means) but that doesn’t even make sense. Anyone who really doesn’t believe is a sincere disbeliever. ALL disbelief is SINCERE disbelief. It it isn’t sincere, it isn’t disbelief.

and we should NOT believe because it is easier to believe in God. None of these reasons affect whether God does or does not exist. Hence, the entire reason for this thread.

Nobosy actually thinks that these are reasons to believe or not believe in God.

[Der_Trihs]

@mhendo

If evidence of past error is a prime criterion for making judgments about a system of understanding the world, then science surely has some trouble in this regard.

You counterargument might be that science at least acknowledges its errors, learns from them, and moves forward, but i still don’t think you can so blithely escape the consequences of asguing that past error calls present validity into question.

That is my counterarguement, and past error does matter if it’s consistent and extreme enough. Would you trust the word of a pathological liar ? That’s religion.

[cosmosdan]

@Der Trihs

Incorrect. It’s the person asserting the existence of something who must prove it. That’s true of every thing from new species to fairies to crimes; religious people simply insist that their religion is a special case, and it’s not.

I see your point. IMHO I think that applies if and when someone is trying to convince the other.

         If I say I believe in God you would say there's no evidence to support that  belief. 
         I would say I have personal subjective evidence in the form of experiences that compel me to believe.
        You would say that evidence is meaningless to you and can't be used as proof to anybody else.

       I would say.................................that's okay. 

      You can't show me any compelling evidence to not believe and I can't share my subjective evidence with you. That's okay. 

    I also agree that religion is not in a special catagory. Like IPU or anything in that catagory that cannot be proved or disproved. It doesn't matter until that belief has effects that spill over into the lives of others. When someone feels the need to testify to me about their perception of the "truth" then they should be prepared to hear what I think. If someone wants to pass a law based on their religious beliefs, or dictate the morals of others based on their religious beliefs then they'd better be prepared to vigorously defend them. OTOH if someone wants to pass laws restricting someone's right to express their belief in a way that does not harm others, they're in for a fight as well.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

That’s true if you are willing to say you believe without evidence and despite evidence against. Your belief is your own issue. But if you say there is no evidence against an omnibenevolent and omnipotentent god, then we can provide such evidence. Ignore it if you wish, but don’t claim it does not exist.

PLease pardon my ignorence but what is omnibenevolent and how does it differ from benevolent?

I understand on an intellectual level {at least I think I do} and I feel on a more gut level the strength of your arguement. It is very hard to look at the suffering in the world and and still see God as a loving omnipotent parental figure. I would never claim that it is not a powerful arguement. For me it is again a matter of perspective and I find the arguement more emotional than logical.

[CJJ]

@SentientMeat

I reject the fiirst premise, that everything has a cause. Causation is dependent upon time, specifically on there being a time when X is not the case and another time when X is the case.

Modern cosmology tells us that the universe has always existed, ie. there is never a time of no universe, nor any nothing-to-something transition. How can something that’s always been everywhere be “caused”?

I’m not sure it’s fair to limit causality in this way. The specific limitation you’re claiming is that something cannot have been caused unless it first didn’t exist (before time X) but then existed later (after time X).

But it may be enough to say that something is caused if it has a beginning, i.e. “the non-existence before time X” criterion is not required. If we believe big-bang theory and modern cosmology, it is clear the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, therefore it has a beginning, and therefore it was caused.

A second argument which does not tie the notion of “cause” to questions of time is based on the idea that it is not logically necessary for the universe to exist. For example, if I see a book laying on a table, I can easily imagine situations where a book would not be lying on the table. The very fact that I can do this implies there must be a reason–a cause–for the book to be in the position it is. Using the language of modal logic, I’d say the fact of the book’s presence on the table is a contingent truth.

Now on the other hand, one could argue that the true statement “All bachelors are unmarried” has no cause because it is a logical tautology; I can’t imagine a bachelor who is married, so a cause for this fact is in doubt. One might refute this by saying the cause for the truth in “All bachelors are unmarried” lies in the definition of the word “bachelor”, but this definition is itself a contingent truth; I can imagine a different word being used to define bachelorhood.

The universe, clearly, does exist, but we can imagine it could not exist, and in fact have no reason to believe it must exist as a result of logic. Thus, per this definition of causality, the universe must have a cause. The point of this digression–if you’ve stuck around this long–is to show how causality could be linked to this idea of contingency, escaping the potential trap of a causality based on time with respect to the creation of the universe.

To close, I’m not writing this to convince anyone of God’s existence, though I do indeed believe it for some of the reasons cited above. I merely want to point out that some of the philosophical arguments in favor of a Creator are rather formidable. Again, I reiterate this does not necessarily justify the various and sometimes contradictory attributes ascribed to a Christian god, and I am truly interested in discussion to the contrary.