Reasons for belief and disbelief in God

Great Debates
141

You must be really proud of your thread. As a straight dope member with quite a few posts, could you please answer my questions honestly.

  1. Can we agree on the fact that the theory that something has always been (time or the universe or God or whatever you want to come up with) does not make sense to us? It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, we just cannot grasp the knowledge. It takes a propensity to belief (accept) the position, and is no doubt somewhat easier to take in once we accept it. But that does not change the fact that it still does not make complete sense to us. All you are essentially doing is changing the idea of something coming from nothing to time coming from nothing. It’s just a concept. If that satisfies you then you have a propensity to believe in your favor. Without the propensity to believe it you are at the same spot you started at.

  2. Christianity (besides certain viewpoints on genesis as an example), have nothing wrong with the logic. It always comes down to faith. Simply put, if it was as easy as showing that A did not mean B, then we could show that the religion was a fallacy. However, it relies on unknown facts, and is therefore based on faith.
    Excuse my bluntness, but with all due respect, it appears as if you took a theory that is thousands of years old that says God has always existed, and simply put the “Universe” instead of “God” in there and act like it’s some big break through. Please explain to me why the reaction on this board is to say that there is nothing to argue. Yet when someone says the exact same theory as you and puts the word “God” instead of “Universe” in it, people have no problem saying the theory is not logical and “God had to have come from somewhere”. If that is not a bias, what is?

142

Also, please spare us the effort of trying to make it sound as if I have a problem with Sentients theory. I think it is a great theory provided you have the propensity to believe it. What I do have a problem with is this board saying things are illogical simply because it disagrees with their warm, cozy viewpoint. They are merely attempts at bringing down someone elses viewpoint because they do not agree with yours and have no logical basis.

143

It makes sense to me. It makes more sense to me than the idea that it has a begiinning or an end. Time is a measurement tool used to measure a dimension based upon physical objets and their relative motion. Time is fixed only to specific events. In the case of the Gregorian Calendar it’s fixed to the inception of the Christian-Roman empire that we know of as Christendom. That doesn’t mean anything about the vast amount of time that came before.

Saying that logic is unecessary to the argument doesn’t make the argument logically consistent. If you want to be logically consistent, you can’t just throw out the rules of logic that would make your argument logically inconsistent.

Yeah, that is basically what they did, and it’s the crux of their bias. However, I think the difference is a matter of consciousness. God is conscious, the Universe is just a random mass of particles interacting with one another based upon certain principles. So the argument comes down to whether or not you believe in a universal consciousness.

As Pontius Pilate said, “What is truth?”

Erek

144

No, we cannot. It makes perfect sense to me (especially in terms of a multiverse).

No it doesn’t. It would only require an ability to understand the (hypothetical) evidence.

It makes perfect sense to me.

You still don’t understand the logical defaults. Only positive assertions require rationalization/ “justification”/ belief. If it is your assertion that the universe requires a cause then its incumbent on you to prove it. not on anyone else to disprove it.

Christianity is filled with logical problems, many of which have been articulated in this thread and which remain unrebutted by you. Saying “it comes down to faith” is a non-sequitur with regards to whether Christian doctrine is logically consistent so I don’t know what your point is with that. Sure, it requires faith to be a theist. So what?

What theory would that be? Do you know what the word “theory” means? Your describing a religious belief, not a theory.

No one thinks that’s a breakthrough. It’s standard response to the cosmological (“first cause”) argument. If God can be uncaused, then so can the universe. If the universe can’t be uncaused, then neither can God.
[quoe]Please explain to me why the reaction on this board is to say that there is nothing to argue. Yet when someone says the exact same theory as you and puts the word “God” instead of “Universe” in it, people have no problem saying the theory is not logical and “God had to have come from somewhere”. If that is not a bias, what is?
[/QUOTE]

Because “God” is an unnecessary entity with regard to the universe. There is no logical reason to posit a “creator” as long as the the existence of the universe can be explained without one. The First Cause argument no longer has any currency in science because its premises cannot be shown to be valid.

145

So then you must also agree with the logical conclusion that God could have created everything.

Unless you believe that God is some big guy with long gray hair floating in the clouds I will assume you have no clue what you are talking about.

Please. Tell me them. I have not seen a single one. For every logical problem you suggest that Christianity has I have shown you more than one way it works. You are simply assuming that you understand Christinianity which you obviously do not. Try me Dio. We are not arguing about anything besides the fact that you do not like my viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with my viewpoint. If there is, please show me. You cannot come up with something wrong with my viewpoint because there is nothing wrong with my viewpoint. You keep relying on your bias towards religion. Noone cares what you think about God. If you would let your ego down for two seconds you would realize that this thread is not about what you believe is more likely that happened. It is what is logical. Of which it is painfully obvious that you cannot show me anywhere where my logic is lacking in regards to Christianity.

So you do agree that God is just as logical as Sentients suggestion.

So now we rely on opinions? Has it ever occured to you that God could be the exact same universe that you are talking about? So apparently the word we use to define something means more than the actual logic behind it. If you would think for two seconds, you would realize that Sentients argument is the exact same argument that people have had for years. You choose to put universe instead of God in it.

146

I agree that it makes more sense. This is the entire reason people believe in God. Because it makes more sense a lot of other theories. What I am saying is that it still does not make (perfect) sense. We do not see how it could be possible. We can imagine that it is possible. But we cannot completely see how it could have happened.

147

Of course not, you can’t see how it could have happened because there is no cause for it. It simply has always existed, as time exists as a subset of the universe. An inch is infinitely large, there is infinite space in every inch, only be comparison to the inch can we define limits for how large an inch is. An inch is based upon bodies and their relationships in space. The same is true of a minute, a minute is infinitely long, the truth is it is infinite because it is infinite, that’s all there is to it. We have built our own cosmology based around our observation of it, and expecting a cause is expecting for reality to conform to our limits rather than conforming our limits to reality. God exists, the fact that I can talk to you is all the proof I need. The fact that you can understand what I am saying shows that we are part of a larger consciousness. Those that argue with us are arguing with our subjective conceptual framework of how we view the universe. They choose to see it as individual consciousnesses interacting whereas we feel as though we are part of a conscious whole. I for one do not find the two frameworks at all incompatible, and I see the argument as being facile because it’s an argument between two completely compatible frameworks. If a previously held belief about the nature of existance proves to be untrue then I would rather release it and find what is true than cling to an outdated framework. God is true by definition just as the universe is infinite and finite both at once by definition. The argument to me is completely and totally semantic, as you have pointed out by your comment about the universe and God being basically the same concept.

Erek

148

I don’t know how you got this out of anything I said. Let me explain it to you again. What “logical conclusion” are you referring to? Do you understand what the phrase “logical conclusion” actually means?

Let me explain this to you again. As long as the existence of the universe can be explained without a magical “creator,” then it is uneccessary to posit one. The First Cause argument is an attempt to show necessity for a Creator. The argument does not work because the premise that the universe needs a “cause” cannot be proven and neither can the assumption that the universe (or multiverse) needs a “beginning”

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it’s supposed to refute anything I’ve said.

I already have.

Read the thread.

No you haven’t.

I understand it fine. It’s not rocket science.

I’m still waiting for you to respond to the last 50 points I’ve made. I see no reason to keep repeating myself.

I have no bias towards religion, I have a bias towards logic and empiricism. You have a bias towards religion (“bias towards” means you’re FER it. “Bias against” means you’re AGIN it. I have no bias either towards or against religion).

Agreed.

I’ve made no attempt to argue about “what is lmore likely.”)
It is what is logical. Of which it is painfully obvious that you cannot show me anywhere where my logic is lacking in regards to Christianity.
[/quote]

I’ve spent a couple of exhautive posts detailing what I believe is illogical about Christian doctrine. You haven’t refuted any of it.

Nope. There is no necessity for God to exist.

Opinions? What I said was not an opinion. It was pretty much just an iteration of Occam’s Razor.

Then it wouldn’t be “God” in the sense that normal people use that word.

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to men.

No. It’s not the “exact same argument” at all. The historical religious belief that God is uncreated is not even an argument, it’s just a premise.

I’ll try one more time. The argument that the universe needs a “cause” is one of the classical arguments for God. The argument attempts to show necessity for an “uncaused” creator or “First Mover.” The argument fails because it cannot be shown that the universe needs a cause or that a first mover is necessary. All that’s established by an eternal universe argument is that the Cosmological argument does not succeed in showing that a creator is necessary. This is not the same as showing that God CAN’T exist, only that one particular argument fails to prove it.

149

No it is something else that is more complex than rocket science. Rocket Science has the virtue of dealing only with the objective and not the interplay between the objective and the subjective, therefore it is a subject that is much easier to understand.

Erek

150

Of coarse you would start out undecided as to whether they exist. I have seen pictures of fish that look incredibly strange. At first, I am told the name of them. I should be unbiased and “undecided” but we all know that our bias from past experience translates into whether we think the name of this fish is being made up by the person telling us or not. Then once we see a picture of the fish, we decide how likely it is that these fish exists based on our past experince in this world.

If you make a decision based on no past experience, you are undecided. It is only from our bias toward something that we are persuaded one way or the other. There is no default disbelief as you say. That is a bias. I have seen the incredibly great things belief in Christ has brought, and I would assume that you base your assumptions on the incredibly terrible things religion has brought. The problem comes when you accuse me of being illogical and have no proof to back it up. All you have is concepts that you don’t see could be logical. You don’t even think for two seconds about how they could be logical. You do not use logical reasoning.

151

No, since I never had that position. In particular I said that suffering caused by other people might not rule out an omnibenevolent god because of the free will argument.

I already gave an answer in my response to cosmosdan. A kid going hungry until lunch is not excessive suffering - a kid not being fed for a week is.

Here is the logical argument.
Premise:
God allows natural disasters and suffering for some purpose. If suffering existed for no purpose, then god is clearly not omnibenevolent.
Premise 2: God is omnipotent. If not, he might not be able to reduce suffering.

If god is omnibenevolent, then he will create/allow the minimal amount of suffering to achieve his purpose. Clearly any suffering above this minimum is unnecessary to achieve god’s purpose, and shows that god is not omnibenevolent.

Observation: Excessive suffering from natural causes happens in the world. We’d clearly be just as awed from 100,000 dying in the flood as 200,000 - or 100,001. Perhaps some of the people killed were evil, and their death would preserve the life of someone else, but surely not everyone! So, if you wish to claim that god is omnibenevolent, you must also claim that the death of each person in the tsunami was necessary. I’ll contend that this is not a rational claim, on the face of it, unless you assume that god is omnibenevolent, so that every action of his is necessary. And this, of course, is assuming your conclusion, and is illogical.

Conclusion: Based on our observation of the world, god is not omnibenevolent.

A similar case is those fundamentalists who defend god killing everyone in the flood, or god commanding Moses to kill all of a tribe. I say that any god worth our worship would sentence people who accuse god of these crimes to hell. Since you have stated that you are not a literalist, this does not apply to you, so don’t take me wrong. But do think about the tsunami.

152

Then copy and paste everything that you genuinely think is illogical that has no plausable way of being logical. I will answer any of them that I have not answered. You still think it is as easy as saying that A does not imply B. If it was, why is this even a religion still?

You can prove that a 6000 year old earth is illogical because of the laws of the universe. This leads to three options.

  1. Someone says that the earth is 6000 years old and says that God does not work according to our laws. This is logical. It is incredibly unlikely since God would have to be incredibly deceitful since evidence says otherwise. The key distinction is that this could be challanged easily. It could not, however, be illogical.

  2. Someone says that the earth is 6000 years old but still believes that God works according to the universes laws. This is illogical since we can show that evidence using the laws of the universe says otherwise.

  3. Someone says the earth is not anywhere near 6000 years old since evidence shows to the contrary. This is logical and is most likely.
    Now I am simply showing that I am following number 1 (the same concept; I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old). There is nothing illogical with what I believe. However, whether mine or yours is more likely is up to debate. If it was as easy as this question poses, we wouldn’t be arguing right now. It is not as easy as this question and is why we still have debates and why some of the smartest people believe one way and other incredibly smart people believe the other way. There is no clear distinction because it is not as easy as saying something is logical or illogical because they are both logical. [Note that my argument is not saying that you should believe one way or the other based on what anyone thinks. Rather my point is that if it were a simple question of looking at what is logical and illogical, there would be almost no smart people believing in it since it is so easily shown to be incorrect.]

One is more likely though. One thing is for sure, neither point is illogical.

I am afraid that you do not understand Christianity. Your bias is that you already understand the religion when you have already pointed out that you do not. You have already shown us that you couldn’t even come up with a way that Christ’s suffering is necessary. I just gave you a way that it was necessary off the top of my head. Just because you do not think it is likely, does not mean that it is illogical.

The only difference is that people think that God is personal.

I will still argue with you that it is the same argument. The only difference being that we do not back ourselves into a wall by pinpointing one single concept (time) that allows the universe to be. I am sorry if you assumed that I think that God always was is the end of the story. If it was the end of the story, then you could just ask “well where did God come from”. Noone I know that has ever thought of the question thinks that that is the end of the story. They know that there are other premises to go along with this. One possible explanation is Sentients explanation. The problem with this is that as our knowledge increases, it most likely not be anywhere near this simple. For whatever reason some people who do not believe act like we have to get all our answers correct right away. I adjust my viewpoint equally as our knowledge increases.

153

Your entire argument is under the assumption that you understand every reason for what happened. You do not know every reason, therefore your argument is invalid. [There is a distinction, an invalid argument can be true for certain cases. It just is not true for every case (that has true premises) and is why it is called an invalid argument] I will not argue with you that you do not have a great point. It is a perfectly logically question to ask why so much terrible destruction takes place. It shows that if you believe in God, we either need a ton of intelligent reasons to get out of the question, or you simply do not know the reasons. It certainly does not make your argument valid though. It could be true, but at the same time it could be false. The entire reason you think that this argument is valid is because you think that humans are smart. I would argue that we incredibly stupid compared to God. Therefore, just because we cannot come up with a good reason, does not make untrue. Noone is arguing with you on the stance that this is less likely. We are arguing on the fact that this argument is valid.

154

Does anyone disagree with me:

All of the conclusions have to be true in a logical statement for the conclusion to be true. [Provided the premises are true]. Therefore, if I can point out one possible way that your conclusion is not true, your argument is invalid.

Therefore, you cannot claim that I am being illogical unless there is no possible explanation. This also shows that everything comes back to faith.

Can we agree on this? It is complete common sense but apparently noone on this board believes this. Not a single person has stuck up for me when it is incredibly apparent that half the people who have replied to me have not been following this logic. Why? Just because they agree with your overall viewpoint. Don’t mind the fact that they are using incorrect logic?

155

I respect Diogenes’ thinking on many points, but personally disagree that the First Cause argument can be so easily shunted aside. By at least two plausible definitions of “cause” (contingency of an effect’s existence and the temporal beginning of an effect), it seems necessary for the universe to have a cause. Sentient Meat offered another plausible definition for cause (need a time X dividing non-existence and existence of an effect) which, I agree, would make a cause for the universe unnecessary (or at least undefinable). I am sure more, plausible definitions of “cause” could be found to concur. The question, then, is which definition do we choose? This is where the existentialist in me comes out: Which definition am I willing to take personal responsibility for?

Debating what is a reasonable idea of causality is admittedly trivial, but the principle behind it is profound (at least for me), and I think ultimately must bear on how we choose answers to these questions. Believing that a book written some 2-3K years ago and cobbled together from old stories, personal political agendas, and historical rationalization is the inerrant word of God is not only foolish, it’s a sinful abrogation of the personal responsibility required in resolving the most important questions humanity can ask. At the same time, denying there is any value in exploring these questions because of the taint of religion, or claiming they are moot because they do not yield to scientific inquiry is irrational: To borrow a common metaphor, it’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

At present, there is no ultimately convincing argument for or against the existence of God; the one I have championed is plausible to me, and I discuss it to see if/where/how it can be improved. In order for that improvement to occur, I must be willing to concede that, one day, I could be convinced otherwise. You’ll have to take my word for it, but I sincerely believe this is the case, and in fact think this openess to being proven wrong is essential if you want you personal beliefs to be useful to you, to be more than the shallow platitudes that so commonly pass for faith, or ways to score points in an argument. Perhaps this, then, answers in some small way the reasons for belief/disbelief in God.

I don’t know if I’ll post again to this thread–I’ve received enough to think about that I am wary of risking that peersonal growth by descending into snark. I want to sincerely thank everyone with whom I’ve had the pleasure of conversing on-line about this thread, and hope you too have gotten something to think about; if not, then why bother debating any longer? :wink:

156

I applaud you for your letting go of the worry of needing to be “right”, and instead analyzing the arguments from both sides. I am confident that you will find what you feel to be truth whatever that may be. Without looking at the subject with equal share in both opinions, we will never get anywhere and I feel that you have come to realize this.

157

Two quick points I’d make here.

  1. I can agree with the conclusion of your argument - “God is not omnibenevolent”. However, I would not include omnibenevolence as one of the necessary attributes of God, unlike omnipotence or omniscience. Indeed, it’s debatable whether or not benevolence is always a virtue - is it a quality you’d want to see in a judge or a general?

I accept that the argument “The amount of suffering that God allows means that He’s evil by human standards, and therefore not worthy of worship by humans” is valid, or, at least, rational. However, it’s not an argument against the existence of God.

  1. I still think the “free will” argument, or something close to it, is valid here. If we can avoid fatalism by allowing the human mind to be free of God’s direct control, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t give the same liberty to natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and tsunamis. I don’t want to ascribe anything like “mind” to the Earth, but I still feel there’s room in a theistic universe for genuine chance - for events that aren’t under the direct control of God. If you’re saying something like “God should have intervened to prevent the tsunami”, we can then go on to “God should intervene to prevent any sort of evil”, and destroy free will in the process. Something like “God should have designed the Universe so that tsunamis didn’t happen” implies that the person making the statement knows more about designing universes than God does, and I don’t think anyone’s in that position - as yet. :slight_smile: If the argument is “God should have made the tsunami cause less suffering”, I would repeat my original point; what objective, non-human standards do we have to say whether a given level of suffering is “excessive”?
158

Have you heard that Godzilla is more powerful than God ? Godzilla can take on iron chariots. :smiley:

People on amusment park rides aren’t supposed to suffer horrible deaths. This type of arguement is quite sick.

Also known as blaming the victim.

They still hurt as much. If the world works like you think, I will have eternity to plot your Gods slow death. He deserves it, and after all, according to you it’s no big deal, right ?

I understand your version of God quite well. The phrase “utter, absolute scum” comes to mind, not to mention “sociopath”.

If an infant is born with a disease, suffers constant pain from birth and dies within a year having never know anything but pain, how is that not “excessive suffering” ?

Don’t you see the contradiction ? If something “comes down to faith”, then it has nothing to do with logic.

Which makes it a much better arguement, since we know a universe is possible and exists; we know neither about gods.

No, it makes no sense at all. People believe because they were taught to believe, or because they are ignorant or irrational.

159

Are you saying that since there is insufficient evidence for any perspective that it really comes down to what we want to believe since we don’t have the ability to actually prove or disprove anything as of 2006?

160

Exactly! take the hungry child example and compare a lifetime to eternity. Wouldn’t the lifetime be the moment you mention. Wouldn’t a lifetime of let’s say 80 years with extreme hardship be a bruise when the goal {being pulled away from the socket}is heaven and the alternative {sticking a fork in the socket} is hell. I mean these metaphorically since I don’t believe in the heaven in the sky and hell a firey lake, but you get my point.

That’s why this arguement fails for me because on one hand we say “if God is, and is benevolent then” but on the other hand we measure physical suffering from a human viewpoint. If you start from the “if God is” arguement then we must also assume a few other things. We are eternal spiritual beings and so whatever happens to our physical bodies is only temporary, in fact, a blink.