The ol' Is Atheism a Religion debate revisited

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Libertarian: Our faith is actually quite practical for us. At first, we were a bit intellectually and emotionally stunned as a whole new unfamiliar comprehension of all things settled upon us, but over time, speaking with God became as ordinary as speaking with you. At least, that was the way of it for me.
I have read of people that have spoken with the Virgin Mary (Bernadette of Lourdes, the children of Fatima, etc…) What is your opinion of those claims?
Libertarian: Apprehension of God seems always to occur in the limbic system. And in fact, stimulation of the limbic system can actually cause you to believe in God. Ramachandran, reflecting on this, cautions skeptics (including himself) not to misinterpret this data, which, he says, can be used either way, to argue for or against the existence of God.

Does this mean that stimulation of the limbic system can also remove belief in God? This is very interesting! I will look for the book you mention. Do you by any chance remember if the belief in God was belief in a non-specific deity, or the belief in Jesus Christ?

[Liberal]

Arnold

I have read of people that have spoken with the Virgin Mary (Bernadette of Lourdes, the children of Fatima, etc…) What is your opinion of those claims?

I don’t have one, really. Ordinarilly, though, I take people at their word, unless there’s some reason for me not to.

Does this mean that stimulation of the limbic system can also remove belief in God? This is very interesting! I will look for the book you mention. Do you by any chance remember if the belief in God was belief in a non-specific deity, or the belief in Jesus Christ?

I don’t have the book with me right now, and I cannot recall with a surety. I don’t remember anything about such stimulation removing belief, but my memory could be selective. Also, as best I recall, the belief in God was a generic belief in a Supreme Being that might have manifested according to culture. (Of course, God is God. Love is Love. A rose by any other name…)

But if you order the book from Amazon, they can deliver overnight. It was recommended to me by Phil, resident Doper and atheist. It deals with phantom limbs, belief in God, and other things to do with the brain. Ramachandran conducts astoundingly simple experiments that you can reproduce yourself, given access to the subjects. No big equipment or fancy machines required. I think you’ll enjoy it.

[Polycarp]

Wow, a thread started by Satan that deals with a debate I had with Gaudere, and I’ve missed it all this time!?!

Let me approach this with a variety of points. I concede they don’t fit together coherently yet, but each is IMHO worthwhile on its own.

Start with a little humor, courtesy of Gaudere’s remark:

Well, there’s only one thing to do if I want to help my UnHoly Cause of Atheism–I must become a Christian. Then I will debate atheists and by doing so strengthen their arguments and beliefs!

Well, whatever works to get you converted!!

Now, to rock bottom. My definition of a religion is a belief system. A collection of concepts that one takes, not on the basis of applying logic to evidence, but by assumptions in which one believes.

There are common assumptions that we all subscribe to. I am firmly convinced that I can walk under the maple tree outside the window where I am typing this and, assuming no severe windstorms, not have the tree fall on me, or flap its limbs and fly away, and no tentacled monstrosities will reach down from the tree, pull me up and eat me in one gulp. If I drop this pen, it will fall. The sun will rise tomorrow. And the SDMB will not suddenly morph into the LBMB.

But there are other assumptions each of us makes that are not shared by everyone, or perhaps even most others. These are part of our belief systems.

The atheist contingent on this board appears to make the tacit assumption that any evidence for a deity must be objective in nature, conform to the requirements of scientific method as prescribed for the physical sciences, and that historical data that would seem to imply the existence of a deity are most likely explained by the process under which a myth or legend is generated. That is a reasonable assumption, given their viewpoints. But it is an assumption. It constitutes part of a belief system. Another element of that belief system is that all “real” things are either directly observable or inferrable from direct observation. Again this is a reasonable assumption, but it does remain an assumption.

The witnessing fundamentalists assume the primacy of the Bible, and that any assertion which contradicts the Bible, or their interpretation of it, is misinterpretation of the facts. (Short hijack, for Andros: I saw a letter in last night’s Raleigh News and Observer which straightfacedly claimed that the reason why all life contains DNA, proteins, etc., was that God created it that way, so that humans could eat plants and animals rather than each other. Would you care for some chianti and fava beans?:D) For Lib. and his fellows, any social institution does not partake of “reality” – it is at most a mutual agreement to play make-believe, a case of being trapped in the maya.

These are all assumptions. Assumptions are necessary, but as old William said, they should not be multiplied unnecessarily.

My own view: I try to keep an open mind, but, to paraphrase Eve, not so open that my brains run out. I’m not prepared to totally reject the possibility of Earth being visited by extraterrestrial intelligences, but there better be much more positive evidence than anything I’ve seen or heard of to date before I buy into it.

I have posted at length on older threads here the aggregation of evidence that has led me to accept the likelihood of a god. At least, what has occurred to me is explained either by the assumption of an objective god or by my subconscious will to believe playing a major trick on me – but the latter assumption implies that my subconscious is capable of feats of extrapolation, precognition, clairvoyance, and other phenomena. Though I do not know myself as thoroughly as I’d like, the idea that I am possessed of those sorts of powers but can only use them subconsciously is far less likely than the existence of a god. Now, the image that God gives me of Himself is one that correlates quite accurately with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth regarding God, as recorded in the Gospels. This is not to say that I am accepting a blanket equivalence here, but rather to make this a minimalist assumption: if there is a god, he is one who loves and desires allegiance from men and women and mutual compassion among them in the same sort of way that Jesus suggested that His Father did. Ergo, the God I love “is” the Christian God. Not the egomaniac tyrant with a fondness for torture that the Jonathan Edwards-style fundamentalists suggest; he can’t even run his own universe – I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine! But the one Christ taught, and Tris and Lib speak of as equivalent to an abstract, personified Love.

I started witnessing, and it’s hard to turn that stuff off. Bottom line is that assumptions are brought to the table by all concerned. Assuming a negative (“there is no god,” “all that exists can be perceived through proper use of science,” “if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not true,” or whatever) is rejecting possibilities that may be true without fair trial of them. One must, of course, be careful in assuming positives too. But the true danger lies, not in credulity, but in rejection of the truth because it doesn’t meet your assumptions.

[Liberal]

Arnold

I found the book in my boss’s office!

Here are some exerpts from the chapter, “God and the Limbic System”:

On what basis does one decide whether a mystical experience is normal or abnormal? There is a common tendency to equate “unusual” or “rare” with abnormal, but this is a logical fallacy. Genius is a rare but highly valued trait, whereas tooth decay is common but obviously undersirable. Which one of these categories does mystical experience fall into? Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way “inferior” to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence — the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion — to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.

Was God talking to us directly through the GSR machine? Did we now have a direct hotline to heaven? Whatever one makes of the selective amplification of responses to religious words and icons, the finding elminates one of the proposed explanations for the experiences — that these people become spiritual simply because everything around them becomes so salient and deeply meaningful. On the contrary, the finding suggests that there has been a selective enhancement of responses to some categories of stimuli — such as religious words and images — and an actual reduction in response to other categories such as seuxally loaded ones (as is consistent with the diminished libido that some of the patients report).

So what’s the bottom line? The one clear conclusion that emerges from all this is…

Get the book. Heh heh heh.

By the way, I did see where Ramachandran said that he had not, as yet, attempted a Godectomy.

[Ptahlis]

**
Evidently, there’s this ubiquitous assumption among some atheists (not you, of course) that faith is some sort of struggle, that we have to squint real hard and grunt to believe.

Our faith is actually quite practical for us. At first, we were a bit intellectually and emotionally stunned as a whole new unfamiliar comprehension of all things settled upon us, but over time, speaking with God became as ordinary as speaking with you. At least, that was the way of it for me.

**

Personally, I can see where faith in a Creator would come very easily. There are lots of arguments that support such a notion on the face of things. But when it comes down to particular notions of faith-- the resurrection, Biblical inerrancy, the notion that Jesus’ death was necessary, the triune nature of God, transubstantiation, virgin birth-- those things do tend to evoke a “grunt and squint” image, because I would have to do a lot of it to attempt belief. There is so little evidence that I find even remotely plausible for such things that “faith” does indeed seem almost like a magic act, and I could no more believe in the Visions of Fatima than I could believe Cayce’s stories of Atlantis. The fact that some folks are remarkably unable to admit the possibility of error in their perceptions, or even critically examine their beliefs in the slightest way (We’ve had some recent examples around here that I won’t mention.) actually serves to increase the perception of “grunt and squint” faith, by making it seem too fragile to bear up under personal scrutiny.

I don’t question the veracity of theists when they say they perceive God, or when they say that their intuition and reason tell them that the Watchmaker argument, for instance, is very persuasive. What really makes my alarm bells go off is when some of them spout off as though their tower of truth is unassailable. In short, some people make faith look as natural as breathing, while others put forth an almost palpable “grunt and squint” image.

**
As I see it, from what I’ve learned here at SDMB (and I realize I have much more to learn), it is usually the empirical evidence that the atheist, at least the soft atheist, lacks. Would you agree?
**

I would. If I thought I had the evidence, even wholly subjective evidence, that God was real, I could not fail to see the world in a whole new light. Denying God in that instance would be as impossible as affirming him is to me now.

[Liberal]

I can see that this is developing into as good a thread as the old Atheist Religion ones. (Way to go, Satan!)

Thank you, Ptahlis, for those insights.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

The “unmoved mover” paradox has never been a strong srgument for the existence of God(s). It was, and remains, simply one more example of tendency or reliigous apologists to label blank areas in our map of the Universe “Here There Be God(s)”. Only a priori assumptions about the nature of God(s) bring that subject into the discussion of ultimate cause. That Bob Cos’ roommate was unable to recognize the circularity of teh argument does not put him in select company. It also does not make the argument logically sound.

Our confidence in Reason itself is a faith for which we cannot provide any non-question-begging argument.

No. Our faith in reason is supported by a massive accumulation of empirical evidence which convinces us that reason is teh most accurate tool we have found for apprehending and predicting our environment.

There is an important distinction between a faith (in the reliability of sense perception, for instance) that no one can help having, and a faith (a religious one, for example) that is not universally shared - and, for some of us, at least, is optional. I shall speak of the former as natural faith, since it is just as much a part of our nature as sex or digestion."

This distinction is attractive on its face, but inherently absurd when examined closely. If the distinction between a “natural” faith and an “optional” faith is unanimity of belief, then all one must do to reduce the set of natural faiths to null is find the nearest ardent nihilist.

Apprehension of God seems always to occur in the limbic system. And in fact, stimulation of the limbic system can actually cause you to believe in God. Ramachandran, reflecting on this, cautions skeptics (including himself) not to misinterpret this data, which, he says, can be used either way, to argue for or against the existence of God.

Lib – are you certain you wish to use the word “always” here? It seems unsupported by what little I know of the research in this area (I have read only a few second hand reports).

The atheist contingent on this board appears to make the tacit assumption that any evidence for a deity must be objective in nature, conform to the requirements of scientific method as prescribed for the physical sciences, and that historical data that would seem to imply the existence of a deity are most likely explained by the process under which a myth or legend is generated.

This is not, at least in my case, strictly true. The third point is open to many quibbles, but perhaps more importantly the first is almost entirely the reverse of my own explorations into this question. In brief:

1. To rationally conclude the existance of God(s) I must find support which is applicable to the tools of reason.
2. Without such support (the objective evidence to which you refer), it is not possible to use reason to conclude God(s) exist.
3. If I cannot use reason to apprehend God(s), then I must use another tool.
4. It is not sufficient for another tool to provide evidence for God(s), I must also have evidence that the tool is reliable.

It is difficult to discuss these issues without either oversimplifying or risking 1,000 line posts, but I hope it is clear that the restrictions I have placed on the search are upon the reliability of my own “knowledge” not on the characteristics of hypothesized God(s).

Another element of that belief system is that all “real” things are either directly observable or inferrable from direct observation.

I think the word “real” here is a bit loaded. I would rather state that I have confidence that observable physical effets are generated by observable physical phenomena.

Assuming a negative (“there is no god,” “all that exists can be perceived through proper use of science,” “if it’s not in the Bible, it’s not true,” or whatever) is rejecting possibilities that may be true without fair trial of them.

At no time have I assumed any of those things.

But the true danger lies, not in credulity, but in rejection of the truth because it doesn’t meet your assumptions.

I see no reason to decide that it is less dangerous to embrace falsehood than to reject truth. Can you expound on this? (Please, please, please tell me we don’t need to disect Pascal’s Wager again!)

[Ptahlis]

**
The atheist contingent on this board appears to make the tacit assumption that any evidence for a deity must be objective in nature, conform to the requirements of scientific method as prescribed for the physical sciences, and that historical data that would seem to imply the existence of a deity are most likely explained by the process under which a myth or legend is generated. That is a reasonable assumption, given their viewpoints. But it is an assumption. It constitutes part of a belief system. Another element of that belief system is that all “real” things are either directly observable or inferrable from direct observation. Again this is a reasonable assumption, but it does remain an assumption.

**

Speaking for myself PolyCarp, I would change that just a little bit. I would be perfectly accepting of subjective evidence if it were my own. Your subjective evidence is no doubt very convincing to you, yet someone else’s testimony about theirs probably carries little weight if it contradicts what you believe to be true. For instance, if I were to tell you that I had been abducted by trolls from the earth’s core, you would be more than a little skeptical about my testimony no matter how earnest I was when presenting it. If I were to perceive God directly, I would have to accept that evidence, despite its being neither objective nor testable. Also, God may be both real and be unobservable. We may just not have the proper observational tools. Light doesn’t cease to be because a blind man cannot see it. (That was the first metaphor that sprang to mind, so I left it, even though I am aware of the delicious sense of irony with which many theists might read that!) Although I find it reasonable without evidence to the contrary to withhold belief in an immortal soul, I cannot categorically state that I don’t have one, just that I won’t believe it yet.

[Polycarp]

I stand by what I wrote. I’m not trying to be obnoxious on this, but to simply state what I’ve perceived as a generalization among those who indicate their disbelief in a god generically. Like all rules, including this one, it has exceptions.

I think that probably Gaudere and David would be disinclined to believe even their own subjective evidence, because it does not stand up to the general rule they have established for evidence. I concur that subjective evidence is valid principally for the person experiencing it. (Parallel: if the National Enquirer reported a Bigfoot sighting in Oregon, I would be disinclined to believe it; if the New York Times carried the same report, I would be inclined to believe it. If I were to visit Oregon and sight something with the characteristics of the legendary Bigfoot, I would investigate and determine whether my sighting could be otherwise explained, and if so, by what. But I would not reject it out of hand as “it must be a bear seen through fog, or some college kids playing a prank, or something.” However, I would not automatically give credence to the sighting as clearly a Bigfoot sighting but “test the spirits,” as it were, to see whether it meets some degree of validity.

I’m not assaulting anybody’s atheism; I’m just suggesting that the rules of evidence are slanted in favor of (the philosophic doctrine of) Materialism. And that that is an assumption, not proof.

[oldscratch]

I will agree wtih PolyCarp. They are slanted towards materialism. But, that’s the way it’s got to be. If you want to convince someone who is religious that God doesn’t exist, you have to do so using their criteria and assumptions.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Our confidence in Reason itself is a faith for which we cannot provide any non-question-begging argument.

No. Our faith in reason is supported by a massive accumulation of empirical evidence which convinces us that reason is teh most accurate tool we have found for apprehending and predicting our environment.

I think that was Morriston’s point, too, that at some point, you must simply accept reason, since you can’t prove the validity of reason using reason without begging the question. (Much like David told FoG that he couldn’t use the Bible to prove the Bible.)

There is an important distinction between a faith (in the reliability of sense perception, for instance) that no one can help having, and a faith (a religious one, for example) that is not universally shared - and, for some of us, at least, is optional. I shall speak of the former as natural faith, since it is just as much a part of our nature as sex or digestion."

This distinction is attractive on its face, but inherently absurd when examined closely. If the distinction between a “natural” faith and an “optional” faith is unanimity of belief, then all one must do to reduce the set of natural faiths to null is find the nearest ardent nihilist.

No problem. I had thought this additional point from Morriston supported the distinction Gaudere said you made, namely, “As Spiritus noted, there seems to be a difference between faith that you will go to Valhalla if you die in battle [what Morriston called ‘optional faith’] and faith that people do not occaisionally turn into turnips when you are not looking at them [what Morriston called ‘natural faith’.”

Apprehension of God seems always to occur in the limbic system. And in fact, stimulation of the limbic system can actually cause you to believe in God. Ramachandran, reflecting on this, cautions skeptics (including himself) not to misinterpret this data, which, he says, can be used either way, to argue for or against the existence of God.

Lib – are you certain you wish to use the word “always” here? It seems unsupported by what little I know of the research in this area (I have read only a few second hand reports).

Well, I’d like to stick with the phrase I used: “seems always”.

Ramachandran and others are conducting tests in this area currently. It is possible that spiritual acuity might begin elsewhere in the brain, and simply cascade through the amygdala into the limbic region, which does take input from all the senses, as a core processing area of the brain. Though preliminarily, apprehension of God seems limbic-centered, it is too early to conlcude beyond a “seems”.

Regarding experiments he conducted with epileptics using a simple GSR (galvanic skin response) kit, he writes:

So do these findings imply that there are neural structures in the temporal lobes that are specialized for religion or spirituality, that are selectively enhanced by the epileptic process? This is a seductive hypothesis, but other inerpretations are possible. For all we know, the changes that have triggered these patients’ religious fervor could be occurring anywhere, not necessarily in the temporal lobes. Such activity would still eventually cascade into the limbic system and give you exactly the same result— an enhanced GSR for religious images. So strong GSR itself is no guarantee that the temporal lobes are directly involved in religion.

There is, however, another experiment that could be done to resolve this issue once and for all. The experiement takes advantage of the fact that when seizures become seriously disabling, life-threatening and unresponsive to medication, portions of the temporal lobe are often surgically removed. So we can ask, What would happen to the patient’s personality — especially his spiritual leanings — if we removed a chunk of his temporal lobe? Would some of his acquired personality changes be “reversed”? Would he suddenly stop having mystical experiences and become an atheist or an agnositc? Would we have performed a “Godectomy”?

[Gaudere]

If my subjective experience is not more powerful, convincing or otherwise significantly different than my subjective evidence that there are monsters under my bed or that there are tree-spirits, I will not believe. That seems a reasonable line to draw. If the subjective evidence is more powerful, convincing or otherwise significantly different than my subjective evidence that there are monsters under my bed or tree-spirits, then I would likely believe (assuming there are not other much more plausible explanations for my subjective experience; if I see God while on LSD, I would probably not accept that as proof), particularly if the experience is repeated. However, I must say that in the realm of subjective experience, the monster under my bed has God beat hands down so far.

[oldscratch]

Gaudere’s comment reminds me of a story a friend told me. Really, it was a friend. Really.

He had been at a party out at a farm in WI. He had done quite a few shrooms, some other stuff, LSD, pot, and had seriously dehydrated himself(by accident). As he was walking home from this party, Jesus decended from the clouds and told him to stop doing so many drugs. He just passed it off as another halucination and kept walking. They way he told it to me was hillarious. I’ve never seen God or Jesus while tripping, and now I’m all jealous

[Liberal]

However, I must say that in the realm of subjective experience, the monster under my bed has God beat hands down so far.

“You never know what’s around the corner.” — Lib’s sainted mother

[Gaudere]

“You never know what’s around the corner.”

Is it the monster under my bed?! :eek:

[Liberal]

Is it the monster under my bed?!

Gaudere, you just never know.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

No problem. I had thought this additional point from Morriston supported the distinction Gaudere said you made, namely, “As Spiritus noted, there seems to be a difference between faith that you will go to Valhalla if you die in battle [what Morriston called ‘optional faith’] and faith that people do not occaisionally turn into turnips when you are not looking at them [what Morriston called ‘natural faith’.”

I agree that a distinction should be made between the different uses of the word “faith”. I simply do not see the particular categorization that Morriston chose as a meaningful or valid one.

Well, I’d like to stick with the phrase I used: “seems always”.
.
.
.
Regarding experiments [Ramachandran] conducted with epileptics using a simple GSR (galvanic skin response) kit, he writes:

This focuses exactly on what I was hinting at, actually. Ramachandran has chosen a test population for specific purposes [ease of study, demonstrable neurological deviations from the norm, similarity of symptom, etc.]. This population may, in fact, be ideal for studying religion as a generalized phenomenon of the human being. It may also be entirely inappropriate for studying the phenomenon. It is by no means certain that the neurological effects which accompany religious ideations in this population also occur in the general population.

I argue this in full knowledge that if Ramachandran is correct it would be trivial for me to demonstrate that no faith (of a religious nature) was involved in atheism by pointing out that when the subjects are not having a religious ideation the “faith center(s)” of their brains do not show the expected activity. Therefore, not believing in God(s) would be shown to be strongly differentiated from believing in God(s) at the neurological level. sigh Sometimes you just can’t take the easy way out.

[Stratocaster]

**
The “unmoved mover” paradox has never been a strong srgument for the existence of God(s). It was, and remains, simply one more example of tendency or reliigous apologists to label blank areas in our map of the Universe “Here There Be God(s)”. Only a priori assumptions about the nature of God(s) bring that subject into the discussion of ultimate cause. That Bob Cos’ roommate was unable to recognize the circularity of teh argument does not put him in select company. It also does not make the argument logically sound.
**

That my buddy was not able to recognize the circularity of the argument may have more been a function of the fact that we were several beers into the discussion at that point.

But seriously, Spiritus Mundi, I am very interested in your assertion that the “Unmoved Mover” is a circular attempt “to label blank areas in our map of the Universe.” The blank area here, according to my understanding, is that portion of our logical universe that cannot explain the infinite regression of physical agents previously described without reasonably concluding the existence of an entity unconstrained by the physical world as we understand it.

Remember, unlike that bum Aquinas, I’m not discussing the nature of this entity. I also absolutely allow that this “blank area” may be filled with something completely different should our understanding of the causality of the physical world change. But in the absence of that, why is this circular? Isn’t it logical to accept, given what we know (which can always change)?

I sincerely welcome your feedback if you have the time. This is a syllogism I’ve always found satisfactory (though, as I’m sure you’ve concluded, I’m no expert in philosophy), but if the tidy completeness of it is an illusion, I’d prefer to be enlightened. Plus, then I’ll stop bringing it up every time someone mentions a pink unicorn or flying purple people eater.

[pinqy]

Bob Cos said:

There are logical arguments for the existence of God (e.g., Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover syllogism, as noted earlier). Remember now, by focusing on atheism we are ignoring much (most?) about the nature of God. This thread focuses merely on His existence (so don’t picture his form, or which religion’s holy cards are authentic, or if indeed He’s purple or pink).

But the form is important. To decide, or even argue, whether or not something exists, it must first be defined. Aquinas’ syllogism, for example, is innappropriate for those gods which are not claimed to be the creator.

Given our physical world (and our current understanding of it), is there not at least something reasonable in asserting that an infinite regression of physical agents is illogical?–i.e., there must have been some non-physical initation. Or put another way, does it not require some sort of faith to state, everything I see (which is physical) is merely the end state of an inexorable physical progression that simply always existed–no one created it–even though I cannot explain logically how that might have occurred?

The key phrase here is "our current understanding of [the physical world]. I have never heard anyone justly say that they knew enough about the nature of time, or the universe to even identify all the possibilities of what might have been. Was there an “initiation” that required a creator? Is the universe a byproduct of something else which we cannot experience? Does cause and effect always hold true? Your argument assumes that we know enough to have some definitions to say what is or is not logical and/or necessary beyond that which we can observe and test.

You might not find these logical arguments satisfying (many do not), but I do believe that they at least place a belief in God (or a non-belief, for that matter) in a different category than faith in flying purple people eaters.

It’s a big jump (IMHO) to go from “the universe must have a cause” (which I see as an argument from ignorance, anyway) to apply that perceived need to a particular entity. And here’s my point: with exceptions, God is not defined solely as the “thing that started the universe” but is a defined entity to which the creator role is assigned. And it is those particulars that end up putting it at the level of the IPU. In modern times, gods no longer worshipped are considered equivalent to the IPU and purple people eaters. And where do non-supreme gods fit? Apollo, Thor, Anubis, etc.?

What’s so wrong about saying “I have no idea?”

pinqy

[Stratocaster]

**
Bob Cos said:

There are logical arguments for the existence of God (e.g., Aquinas’s Unmoved Mover syllogism, as noted earlier). Remember now, by focusing on atheism we are ignoring much (most?) about the nature of God. This thread focuses merely on His existence (so don’t picture his form, or which religion’s holy cards are authentic, or if indeed He’s purple or pink).

But the form is important. To decide, or even argue, whether or not something exists, it must first be defined. Aquinas’ syllogism, for example, is innappropriate for those gods which are not claimed to be the creator.
**

pingy, what if my definition is simply “an entity unconstrained by our physical law”? Does that change your reaction? Is that sufficient? Perhaps it isn’t. I may have been unclear when I distanced myself from God’s “nature.” By that, I meant only that I wasn’t trying to prove a Christian God or a Muslim God or any particular flavor.
**

The key phrase here is "our current understanding of [the physical world]. I have never heard anyone justly say that they knew enough about the nature of time, or the universe to even identify all the possibilities of what might have been. Was there an “initiation” that required a creator? Is the universe a byproduct of something else which we cannot experience? Does cause and effect always hold true? Your argument assumes that we know enough to have some definitions to say what is or is not logical and/or necessary beyond that which we can observe and test.
**

I guess that’s what I’m asserting: in the absence of some other evidence, mustn’t we assume that cause and effect holds true, that the “something else” that, perhaps, we can’t experience is unknown and therefore not subject to argument (right now, anyway), unless there is a deductive argument for it. Again, I would not submit that “what we know” is immutable.

But we know something about cause and effect and how it works within the construct of the physical universe. Given that understanding (which is all we have now), why is it unreasonable to conclude what I have? And, in sticking with the thread’s original debate, doesn’t your assertion that I don’t know enough to say what is “logical” (I’m assuming you mean none of us do) support the notion that atheism is (like everything else) an act of faith, given our ignorance. (This is truly a question; I don’t want to misinterpret what you said.)

**It’s a big jump (IMHO) to go from “the universe must have a cause” (which I see as an argument from ignorance, anyway) to apply that perceived need to a particular entity. And here’s my point: with exceptions, God is not defined solely as the “thing that started the universe” but is a defined entity to which the creator role is assigned. And it is those particulars that end up putting it at the level of the IPU. In modern times, gods no longer worshipped are considered equivalent to the IPU and purple people eaters. And where do non-supreme gods fit? Apollo, Thor, Anubis, etc.?

What’s so wrong about saying “I have no idea?”
**

Again, I am genuinely interested in your (and the rest of the gang’s) argument against God when (for the sake of this argument) we don’t assign any particulars to Him–i.e., there exists an entity unconstrained by physical law that created the universe. Why? Because if He doesn’t exist, I must place my faith in the thought that there is some unknown physical explanation. (Yes, either choice involves faith.)

Nothing wrong with saying, “I have no idea.” But I’m going to hold fast, for the moment at least, that what I’m advancing (while not conclusive with scientific finality!) is something more than just wishful thinking. Am I all wet?