Willing? Able? Unwilling? Unable? To do what, exactly?
You forgot to add " to prevent evil" or something similar. Without those words, this makes little sense.
I agree with most of what you’re saying. I’m as sure of the non-existence of God or indeed any transcendental being as I am of the existence of the keyboard upon which I type these words. Well, almost. But you would do well to try and have a collected thought rather than, as you say, just smear your thoughts and collect them later. Otherwise you’ll never get anywhere in this or any debate.
I believe in a great many things that can’t be proven. For example, I don’t believe that it’s right to beat up atheists, simply because their atheists. I can’t prove this (indeed, how would one go about doing so?), but the veracity of this statement is fairly self-evident.
I believe that if A->B, and B->C, then A must necessarily imply C. I cannot PROVE this; indeed, nobody ever has, since it is a fundamental axiom of logic, and therefore unproven. Nevertheless, all reasonable individuals believe such a thing.
I believe that my mother would willfully give up her life for me, if she had to. I have no way of proving this, short of placing myself in mortal danger, but I believe it with every fiber of my being. She has provided plenty of evidence that she would do so, but evidence is not at all the same thing as proof.
And yes, I do believe in a God, even though his existence has not been proven. I believe that there is sufficient evidence for me to believe in him. Now, you might dispute that evidence, but one cannot rationally object that there is no proof of his existence. Proof is not a prerequisite for rational belief.
Heck, do you believe that proof is necessary for rational belief? If so, then I must challenge you to prove that statement. (And no interjections such as “It’s obvious!” or “It’s self-evident!” please. I’m asking for proof, for the sake of consistency with the proposition in question.)
I disagree that the veracity of the statement “It’s wrong to beat up atheists simply because they’re atheists” is self-evident. In fact, the statement cannot ever be said to be generally true or false. I definitely agree that it is wrong to beat up atheists because they’re atheists, but that requires acceptance of certain key assumptions that I cannot simply expect anyone else to agree with, although most people do.
However, the veracity of “if A=B and B=C then A=C” is self-evident. So is the veracity of “rational belief requires evidence”. Proof certainly isn’t necessary, but evidence is. Otherwise, the phrase “rational belief” loses its meaning, and there’s no difference between rational belief and irrational belief.
Debates like this always make me think of this apocryphal situation… in the old USSR a cosmonaut is arguing with a brain surgeon
“But how can you, a rational educated man, believe in God and heaven ? I have been in space many times and I never saw heaven, I never saw an angel !”
“And I have operated on many brains but I have never seen a single thought.”
So can you feel faith ? (faith as love of God?)
I am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church. It was quite simple and IIRC well-develped views were not required of me.
Is there a valid/logical/empirical reason (outside of the tauntological)for accepting any version of God ?
I agree that you can’t require proof of everything in which you believe, but I do require evidence. I had a [ur=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248279]thread a while back asking for evidence of a deity, and I never saw anything in there that would qualify for me. YMMV and all that, but to me a feeling is evidence of my emotions, not of anything that exists outside of me.
Goldenchild487 writes:
> Really, an invisible man living in the sky who is all knowing and all seeing, but
> created a shit hole of a planet where he doesn’t step in… whatever.
Does any adult believe that God is an invisible man living in the sky?
But maybe I have never been in Love, or what I think is Love is really just mild indigestion… There is no proof for Love, or any subjective emotion. It’s a description of a state of mind that we assume we share but which may well vary from person to person.
To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, it is pointless to try to prove atheism by setting up a theology appropriate to a 6-year-old and then knocking it down. Which is exactly what this looks like - a bitter child revolting against a hateful caricature of religion.
Moreover, this is not a valid argument against the existence of God, per se, but an argument against a particular rendition of God. And a pretty unsophisticated rendition, at that.
I personally feel that strict atheism is a much harder viewpoint to defend than theism. For starters, there’s the whole question of the Universe itself. Here’s a passage that I rather enjoy:
“Present-day science gives us a universe that began to exist a specific number of years ago and may well be spatially finite; it is, moreover, governed by laws that contain a lot of apparently arbitrary numbers, and if these numbers were only a bit different, there would be no life: Only a vanishingly small region in the space of all possible sets of physical laws is occupied by sets of laws that permit the existence of life, and the one universe there is is governed by a set of laws that falls within that miniscule region.” - Peter van Inwegen, “Quam Dilecta”
Or if you read Hawking’s Brief History of Time, you’ll see that even the most current theories of the nature and origin of the universe fall inot either the “greater anthropomorphic” or “lesser anthropomorphic” theories - either of which basically postulates that only a finite portion of space, for a finite portion of time, could possibly harbor intelligent life and that, by design or chance, we happen to be enjoying such a space and time.
These theories don’t prove that there’s a God, but it’d sure make me question my assumptions were I an atheist. The point here is that the more we look into te hard sciences, the less the 19th-century humanist view of a mechanical, infinite and random universe makes sense, and the more it looks like some sort of purpose (call it what you will) was at work in creating the Universe.
I am personally a Christian, recently recovered from a serious bout with agnosticism, and I have to say that the more I read and the more thought I give to the problem, the more comfortable I become with my faith. Does this mean I can prove it? No, and I won’t even try. My argument here is not for any particular creed - I’m just saying that if you want to argue the atheist/humanist viewpoint you should bring a bigger dog to the fight than you have.
Actually IIRC love has been measured. Take this with a grain of salt though, as it’s been a while since I remember reading an article about the discovery.
You are right, the argument presented wasn’t a valid argument against all Gods, I agree with you there.
Not really, IMO, because all one has to do as a strict atheist is point to a lack of evidence in favor of God.
From what I’ve read this passage isn’t true. Modern science says nothing about the universe having an ultimate beginning. All it says is that the Big Bang came from the singularity. It mentions nothing-to my knowledge-of whether the singularity was eternal or not. For all we know the singularity has always existed in one form or another. That explanation is more parsimonious then postulating a deity.
For all we know, this is but one of an infinite number of possible transformations that the singularity has gone through. 99% of which could not harbor life, but 1% of those transformations could harbor life. In an infinite series of transformations, 1% is a big number.
I could be totally off about this, of course.
Why would they make you question your assumptions? At best the atheist would admit that ‘they don’t know’, not that a deity is possible. To argue otherwise would be an argument from ignorance-at least that’s what it sounds like to me.
I’m not sure I follow you on how what you’ve presented shows evidence of an intelligent creator, can you elaborate for me?
The OP probably should have, I agree.
Yep, and that’s why we can question it at all. It’s no great coincidence that we happen to be living in that region. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t know.
Yep, and if we weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to question it.
I don’t see that at all. This is just a slightly more sophisticated version of the creationist argument that points out the vast unlikelihood of everything evolving by chance to the exact point where we are today. If we had evolved by chance to another point, people would walk around saying how incredibly unlikely it is that the klozgar could unguidedly evolve to fit the smorzmit so perfectly. In the same way, the only reason we’re even able to form hypotheses and theories regarding the origin of the universe is that we do live in that tiny zone of probability.
But we can see thoughts today - or their effect on the brain. We also can see the impact of thoughts on the world. We can measure the impact of belief in god on the world (so that exists) but god him or herself has been a bit scarce. So this old chestnut is not a good argument.
Faith exists. But just as the existence of lust for Jessica Rabbit does not mean that Jessica Rabbit really exists, faith in and love for god doesn’t mean any particular god exists.
Good points Meatros and Priceguy.
I am not an expert apologist and am not trying to prove the existence of God here. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the physical sciences – whether it be our understanding of the nature of the universe, or of mathematics, or chaos theory, etc. – do not necessarily militate against a theistic view of the universe, and in many cases may even support such conclusions. But of course they don’t PROVE that there is a God.
In fact, for some reason the thread reminds me of the “Babel fish” argument from the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” series - wherein the existence of a benign parasitic fish that would interpret all languages for its host set up a huge debate. religious folks said the existence of the fish proved God existed, while atheists claimed that, since God could not allow any concrete proof of his existence to exist, the fish proved there could NOT be a God.
There seems to be a double standard surrounding religion. I don’t think anyone believes we can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. There are a lot of other areas (Philosophy, politics, etc.) where people can have access to ALL the available information and still rationally draw different conclusions. It’s really a question of which arguments make sense to you, what baseline assumptions you accept, and which conclusions you are comfortable with. Yet for some reason there seems to persist a viewpoint in academia that a faith in God, as opposed to, say, a belief in liberal politics or free will, is irrational, superstitious, and/or intellectually indefensible.
I am not challenging your atheism/agnosticism (if indeed that is your current state of belief), nor trying to convert you. I believe I am right on this but I do not KNOW it. Even if I were absolutely certain I was right, a lot of my conclusions involve a combination of personal experience, interpretation of evidence, and general upbringing that would have little or no persuasive power for you.
I’m no expert at science, apologetics, or atheism-so if you are truly interested in what I’ve said, my suggestion is to look it up. I could have badly mangled my explanations after all ;).
Well, I don’t think they support theistic views-but I definitely agree that they do not negate theistic views (well, I suppose some theistic views, but not all). Science is decidedly neutral about the matter, seeing as it’s in a realm that it can not investigate (the supernatural).
I suppose though that it could be possible for science to test/measure/confirm if God existed (if God exists), but I can’t think of a way for science to do so (I’m talking about more of a deistic God, rather then an anthropromorphic one).
Douglas Adams is a great author… 
As to whether or not a ‘babel fish’ would prove the existence of God, i would say no. There could be another explanation for it’s existence rather then an omnipotent deity. Granted this is just as unlikely if not more so, but the Babel fish could have been created using magic that pools in certain pockets of the universe. I know it sounds crazy, but it’s an alternative explanation for a deity.
Well, I don’t think you have to disprove something in order to be rational. I think that’s what the key difference is. You only need positive evidence to support positive beliefs (at least as far as I’m aware) and having no belief in God is not a positive belief.
This doesn’t mean that someone who believes in something with no evidence is entirely irrational-it only means that on that specific topic they hold an irrational belief. I’m pretty sure that most people hold irrational beliefs, FWIW.
I understand that and that’s fine IMO. I’m not saying you are wrong, BTW, God could very much exist. There just isn’t any empirical evidence to support God’s existence.
Does there need to be any? I don’t honestly know. All I know is that I would like there to be some concrete evidence for the existence of God. I also find it unfair of particular ‘representations’ of God/Gods to demand belief (or face Hell) in light of the inexistence of evidence. The way I figure it is, if God exists, then he/she/it shouldn’t be concerned with what we believe-seeing as there is an abundance of mutually exclusive beliefs…
But again, what do I know?
Contemplation does not mean worship. If I, as a Jewish atheist, contemplate the Christian god (as I have to some extent) and do not buy into it, I’m just as damned as if I never cracked open the NT - maybe more.
Your statements with respect to god’s desire for us to love him are a bit confusing (common, but confusing.) God seems intent on not showing us any evidence of his existence. All we find in the natural world contradicts his Bible. What we learn of history contradicts much of the history in the Bible. So, if he were really interested in us, why not show some evidence? And don’t give me the old song and dance about evidence damaging faith and preventing free will. Remember those camped outside Mt. Sinai, who had just been brought out of Egypt by miracles, somehow managed to worship the idol anyway.
The argument about not showing evidence to build faith is like Hinckley saying that Jodie Foster never showed evidence that she liked him because that would make his love for her less true.
That’s something I never understood. All throughout the Old Testament God reveals himself, even to nonbelievers. In the New Testament, Jesus provides evidence of divinity (or at least of the supernatural) to pretty much whomever he meets.
Yet today these miracles are in short supply, especially to those who need them the most (such as atheists, agnostics, and people of different religions). If God exists, then why the change?
No, I am simply pointing out that there is no reason for God. Even if God created the heavens and Earth, why is he still around? Why did he exist in the first place? For what reason did he need to build armies of angels and a planet teaming with life?
What benefit could that be? I right now not only devote zero time to God (unless you count these little conversations) but I resent the idea that I’m supposed to have faith in him, and yet my life is running pretty smoothly. I am content, have a wonderful family, and have no more problems than my fair share. In fact, I’ve escaped death several times, and all without the help of prayer or faith. So please explain how I need to accept God.
And finally, the only reason I’m expressing myself in “terms of what I believe” is because that is the current argument. If you want to move on to my attempts to disprove specific accounts in the Bible, we could do that, but that’s not currently what I’m talking about.
And you say you don’t think I know what I believe? Well duh…That’s what I said from the beginning. I am agnostic, I ask questions. I have many, many questions that go unanswered. Religious types, clergymen, even the Bible itself cannot answer them, so of course I’m a little confused as to where my faith stands. I tought I wrote it plainly enough: I think the idea of an invisible man living in the sky is silly. I think that people who follow the Bible verbatum are misguided. I think organized religion as a whole is, in the words of Governor Jesse Ventura, “a crutch for the weak minded”.
And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. — Matthew 13:58
He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. — Mark 6:5
Actually, if it is possible that God exists qua Supreme Being, then it is necessary that He does.
Fair enough, perhaps I overestimated the miracles I remember occuring when I read the Bible (which was quite a while ago). In any event, my puzzlement remains as to why the no show, so to speak.
If God doesn’t send people to Hell, or punish them for nonbelief, then I understand the no show (and it’s possible that such a God does this): However if God does send people to Hell, then why all the other religions? Why the confusion of the message?
Perhaps it’s the idea of punishment/Hell that doesn’t sit right with me, in regards to an eternally good being.