Why do religious people try to prove God exists?

[CurtC]

@Sam_Stone

Furthermore, supernatural claims require extraordinarily strong evidence because they are so far outside of what we already know about the universe.

The last sentence is essentially a Bayesian statement. New evidence always has to be evaluated against the weight of prior evidence.

I’ve been thinking pretty much along the same lines for the past few years - Bayesian analysis is a good way to look at the question of why believers take as a default that a god exists. Their prior “evidence,” their starting point, is that the world exists and a god is the most obvious explanation.

DrDeth posted earlier that science and atheism aren’t related, which is strictly true, but it’s science that kicks the legs out from under that prior default assumption that believers have, and that’s why there’s such a strong correlation between people who understand science and people who reject gods.

[CurtC]

@DrDeth

Indeed, some atheists say that. but harcore atheists not only say they are sure there is no God but anyone who believes in a God is deluded or worse.

I’m sure this must be right, it’s just that I’ve never met one of these people you define as “hardcore atheists.” Do they actually exist?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Voyager

Martin Gardner, another deist, was certainly a believer, unlike Einstein. Just not in your god.

I don’t think it’s fair to call Gardner a Deist. I don’t remember him ever using that term about himself.

One thing he did call himself is a Fideist. Fideists believe in God, but they explicitly deny that it’s possible to prove the existence of God.

And, in looking this up, I notice that, relevant to the thread topic, “Catholic doctrine rejects fideism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, representing Catholicism’s great regard for Thomism, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, affirms that it is a Catholic doctrine that God’s existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Voyager

You are conflating rational with analytical, but there can be rational but not analytical responses. It is very rational for someone dissatisfied with a situation to change it without doing any analysis.

How can I be conflating rational with analytical, when my whole point there was that non-rational judgements can be analytical?

Let’s not talk about statements, let’s talk about poems. You can read a poem analytically, but you can read a poem for how it makes you feel without breaking down how the poet does it.

If you’re feeling something, you’re analyzing it.

I listened to Beethoven symphonies and they moved me though I did not have the tools to understand why. Then I listened to the Greenberg CDs about them and understood what was going on a lot better. That let me do some primitive analysis. But I originally had a purely emotional response out of ignorance. And being tone deaf.
Now if you want to define emotional responses as analytical, you are even more into the benefits of analysis than I am, and that’s quite a lot.

You talk about “primitive” analysis, but what you don’t seem to be getting is that, if what you want is to enjoy some music, then listening to it and seeing how you feel is accurate analysis. That’s excellent work, efficient and immediate. If what you want is to understand the music, then certainly, simply listening to it may be a primitive approach. But an emotional investigation is not an inherently primitive approach, and a research-based investigation is not an inherently superior or deeper approach.

I don’t personally believe that the effects of analysis are necessarily good or bad.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

But it is. You see, there are as many types of Atheism as there are types of, say, Christianity.

Name 10.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

But it is. You see, there are as many types of Atheism as there are types of, say, Christianity.

Looking at this list of Christian denominations, I’d say that the only way you could be more wrong would be if you made the claim that there were more unicorns in your bathtub then there were grains of sand on Earth.

[Jasmine]

I think it important to remember that virtually all of the content of most religions is created by humans who are, by nature, imperfect. Therefore, finding absurdities in religions and using them as proof that a Creator does not exist is a faulted methodology. There is a big difference between spirituality and religion, so a very spiritual person can believe with absolute certainty in a Creator while rejecting man-made religious constructs as fatally flawed.

[Biffster]

Religions are sorta like blood types. You’re pretty much born with it, and even if you decide to be something else, you still have that basic type underneath due to your upbringing.

[Czarcasm]

@Jasmine

I think it important to remember that virtually all of the content of most religions is created by humans who are, by nature, imperfect. Therefore, finding absurdities in religions and using them as proof that a Creator does not exist is a faulted methodology. There is a big difference between spirituality and religion, so a very spiritual person can believe with absolute certainty in a Creator while rejecting man-made religious constructs as fatally flawed.

If all the defense presents is fatally flawed evidence, does the defense come up to the judge and say, “Please disregard all this bad evidence, and make a decision on all the good evidence we can’t seem to lay our hands on.”?

[Jasmine]

@Czarcasm

If all the defense presents is fatally flawed evidence, does the defense come up to the judge and say, “Please disregard all this bad evidence, and make a decision on all the good evidence we can’t seem to lay our hands on.”?

I think a good judge would throw the case out of court because there isn’t any concrete evidence to support anything for either side.

Life in and of itself is a miracle, but it is only circumstantial evidence. No cause and effect relationship between a Creator and life can be proven to any degree at all. On the other hand, the atheistic assertion that a Creator doesn’t exist simply because atheists don’t believe it to be possible isn’t proof, either.

[Czarcasm]

@Jasmine

On the other hand, the atheistic assertion that a Creator doesn’t exist simply because atheists don’t believe it to be possible isn’t proof, either.

What about the more widespread atheistic assertion that, since no real evidence has been brought forth in favor of there being any gods, we’re not going to bother wasting our time picking one to believe in? You want us to consider your proposition, then make your best case-no free passes.

[Czarcasm]

@Jasmine

I think a good judge would throw the case out of court because there isn’t any concrete evidence to support anything for either side

Since the possitive assertion is that “A god did it(whatever it is you claim your god did)”, and you cannot come up with evidence that gods even exist, let alone that a particular god did whatever it was you clam she/he/it did, then the case is thrown out of court automatically. Atheists are under no obligation to refute evidence that is never presented in the first place-the case is thrown out of court due to the (in)actions of the religionists, period.

[Czarcasm]

Life itself is circumstantial evidence of what, exactly?

[Voyager]

@Thudlow_Boink

I don’t think it’s fair to call Gardner a Deist. I don’t remember him ever using that term about himself.

One thing he did call himself is a Fideist. Fideists believe in God, but they explicitly deny that it’s possible to prove the existence of God.

And, in looking this up, I notice that, relevant to the thread topic, “Catholic doctrine rejects fideism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, representing Catholicism’s great regard for Thomism, the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, affirms that it is a Catholic doctrine that God’s existence can indeed be demonstrated by reason.”

Deists are Fideists pretty much by definition, but not all Fideists are deists. I’ve never read anything by him which would make me think he was anything but a deist - he certainly did not believe in a personal god but did believe in a god who initiated the universe and provided meaning.
I’m with the Catholics. Besides the various proofs, which they accept more than I do, their variety of God could act in ways to prove his existence far beyond the bounds of a legal proof, and pretty much to the limit of a “proof” that the world exists. Not 100%, but close. That he has chosen not to do so doesn’t mean he couldn’t. If he existed, that is.

[Grey]

@Czarcasm

Life itself is circumstantial evidence of what, exactly?

Chemistry.

And a nice bottle of wine.

[Voyager]

@Revenant_Threshold

How can I be conflating rational with analytical, when my whole point there was that non-rational judgements can be analytical? If you’re feeling something, you’re analyzing it. You talk about “primitive” analysis, but what you don’t seem to be getting is that, if what you want is to enjoy some music, then listening to it and seeing how you feel is accurate analysis. That’s excellent work, efficient and immediate. If what you want is to understand the music, then certainly, simply listening to it may be a primitive approach. But an emotional investigation is not an inherently primitive approach, and a research-based investigation is not an inherently superior or deeper approach.

I don’t personally believe that the effects of analysis are necessarily good or bad.

Here is the definition of analysis I got from Google:

noun: analysis; plural noun: analyses

detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.

exploration, probe, research, review, evaluation, interpretation, dissection

the identification and measurement of the chemical constituents of a substance or specimen.

If you feel my naive listening to a symphony meets this definition of analysis, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[DrDeth]

@needscoffee

I have never met ONE “hardcore”, “unfriendly”, or “strong” atheists, by your limited definitions. You do realize that Psychology Today is a pop psychology rag, don’t you?
.

Right here in this thread, several.

Ah, if you can’t attack the facts, launch a Ad hominem vs the source.

[DrDeth]

@crowmanyclouds

Well, at least it has ‘psychology’ in the name, meanwhile WorldNetDaily and Evolution News (That’s the Discovery Institute!) are cites for questions of Constitutional law!CMC fnord!

Ah, so since you dont like those sources, that court case doesnt exist, right?:rolleyes:

[Jasmine]

@Czarcasm

What about the more widespread atheistic assertion that, since no real evidence has been brought forth in favor of there being any gods, we’re not going to bother wasting our time picking one to believe in?

Well, I’m fine with that because, in all honesty, I don’t care what you or anyone else believes because I find the beliefs of others to be totally irrelevant as they pertain to what I myself believe. I don’t feel the need to convert you in order to affirm my own beliefs, therefore I am totally unmotivated to make the attempt. I can acknowledge and respect your position without feeling threatened or offended by it.

[DrDeth]

@CurtC

I’m sure this must be right, it’s just that I’ve never met one of these people you define as “hardcore atheists.” Do they actually exist?

Several, right here in this thread.