Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

My point is the entire opposite of this though. I am claiming that the implications of Gods existence are equally important to the believer and non-believer alike. Their belief in God is not what is at issue. Rather the implications of Gods existence is what is at stake (regardless of what they believe in regard to his existence).

..

In this same way, I would argue that the implications of Gods non-existence are just as relevant for believers and non-believers regardless of whether they personally believe God exists.

What do you have to back up this claim, though, other than your belief in it?

I'm sorry I'm being stubborn, but I don't see any other reason why in your mind God's existence would be more important (have "more implications"; i.e. "my God is better than yours") than any other supernatural entity than because you believe it; I don't really care if you think I'm committing the genetic fallacy, because that is what you are essentially saying.

The possible implications for God's existence are just as relevant to me as the possible implications for the existence of fairies; that is, not at all.

Suppose this is the default position (I say suppose because I don't know whether non-belief really is the default position), I don't see how this takes you beyond agnosticism. You have demonstrated a lack of belief, but you have not gone any way to affirming that God does not exist. At best I think this reasoning affords you a sort of weak atheism.

Well, as I've said before, I'm technically an agnostic (we can't ever know if God exists or not) and a practicing atheist (taking the former in mind, and the lack of any evidence, I have an active lack of belief in the existence of God).

The mathematical example was done on purpose to show that opinion doesn't necessitate the falsity of a claim. I could have also said "Rape is wrong" or "Kevin Rudd won the 2008 election". The point is the same. That is, demonstrating that a person has an opinion does not show that their opinion is not true or false.

It does if their opinion has a proof to back it up.

 

[Tully B.]

Atheism doesn't have to be an active belief that there is no God. Atheism, in my opinion at least, can also be a lack of belief.

BradCube: Please stop referring to "genetic fallacies"; it's really quite annoying. Move on.

 

[SylviaB]

Atheism = lack of belief in god

Agnosticism = Lack of knowledge of god's existence


Therefore, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism. Or theism for that matter.

 

[BradCube]

What do you have to back up this claim, though, other than your belief in it?

I'm sorry I'm being stubborn, but I don't see any other reason why in your mind God's existence would be more important (have "more implications"; i.e. "my God is better than yours") than any other supernatural entity than because you believe it; I don't really care if you think I'm committing the genetic fallacy, because that is what you are essentially saying.

The possible implications for God's existence are just as relevant to me as the possible implications for the existence of fairies; that is, not at all.

Okay, so lets go through some of these implications which I am proposing differentiate God and fairies on the question of their existence. All of these areas listed are areas where Gods existence has further implications than a fairies. I thought mentioning them, as I had previously, would have been enough (as they seem fairly obvious conclusions to me), but if you want a snippet of reasoning behind each then here they are.

1. There is no ultimate meaning in life without God:
If every person passes out of existence when they die, then what ultimate meaning can there be for his/her life? His life may be important relative to other people or events, but what good is this if everything (including the universe itself) will eventually die out and pass away? There is no ultimate meaning for anything in this regard.

2. No ultimate value without God
If there is no God, then there is nothing to bind or ground any sense of objective morality. We are left with moral relativism where there really is no meaningful objective sense of "right" and "wrong" in life. Morality becomes an arbitrary human creation.

3. There is no ultimate purpose without God
There is no goal or purpose in life if everything will pass away at the end of it. There is no real reason for existence apart from a scientific proof of how you came to be. We have no more purpose in life than the dirt underneath our feat.

4. There is no forgiveness or redemption without God
For the person that ascribes to some form of objective morality (despite point 2), there is no ultimate forgiveness or redemption for the wrong doings they have committed.

Now, I am sure you will have rebuttals to each of these points so rather than set up counter-rebuttals to straw man arguments, I'll simply keep it brief and wait for your response

Well, as I've said before, I'm technically an agnostic (we can't ever know if God exists or not) and a practicing atheist (taking the former in mind, and the lack of any evidence, I have an active lack of belief in the existence of God).

I just don't think that an "active lack of belief in god" is an adequate description to say much about your beliefs. In fact I don't even really know what and active lack of belief is. Do you mean to say that you constantly affirm that lack of belief in God? Again, how is this different from agnosticism?

It does if their opinion has a proof to back it up.

I think you may have meant to say "It does if their opinions don't have a proof to back it up"?

Either way I still disagree. This goes back to the same point again. Their opinion and how that opinion arose (whether it was through belief in God or otherwise) is not what validates or invalidates their proposition.

 

[BradCube]

Atheism doesn't have to be an active belief that there is no God. Atheism, in my opinion at least, can also be a lack of belief.

As I have expressed, I find such a definition of atheism inadequate as there would be numerous things labeled atheists under such a view - agnostics, cats, dogs, erasers, gofers, unicorns etc.

BradCube: Please stop referring to "genetic fallacies"; it's really quite annoying. Move on.

I apologize if it is annoying, but I will continue to point out invalid logic where I recognize it.

 

[BradCube]

Atheism = lack of belief in god

Agnosticism = Lack of knowledge of god's existence


Therefore, agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism. Or theism for that matter.

Even under your definitions, the agnostic still lacks a belief in God, it's just that they also have a lack of knowledge of Gods existence. Surely the lack of knowledge entails the lack of belief?

 

[Kwayera]

Okay, so lets go through some of these implications which I am proposing differentiate God and fairies on the question of their existence. All of these areas listed are areas where Gods existence has further implications than a fairies. I thought mentioning them, as I had previously, would have been enough (as they seem fairly obvious conclusions to me), but if you want a snippet of reasoning behind each then here they are.

1. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose in life without God:
If every person passes out of existence when they die, then what ultimate meaning can there be for his/her life? His life may be important relative to other people or events, but what good is this if everything (including the universe itself) will eventually die out and pass away? There is no ultimate meaning for anything in this regard.

This is true. However, why does there need to be an ultimate meaning to life/purpose to existence? Biology doesn't care about meaning; why should you?

2. No ultimate value without God
If there is no God, then there is nothing to bind or ground any sense of objective morality. We are left with moral relativism where there really is no meaningful objective sense of "right" and "wrong" in life. Morality becomes an arbitrary human creation.

The fallacy there is assuming morality comes from God or religion. It never did - religion may be a representation of our innate morality (i.e. biological altruism, evolutionary psychology, etc - altruism is not a surprise to biology, that needs to be treated like something supernaturally given or inspired), but there is no proof and no need, even, for human morality to have come from God.

I don't know about you, but I am perfectly able to be a "moral" person without binding that sense of morality to a god

3. There is no ultimate purpose without God
There is no goal or purpose in life if everything will pass away at the end of it. There is no real reason for existence apart from a scientific proof of how you came to be. We have no more purpose in life than the dirt underneath our feat.

Is this a repeat of #1? Either way, why does there need to be an ultimate, divine purpose?

4. There is no forgiveness or redemption with God
For the person that ascribes to some form of objective morality (despite point 2), there is no ultimate forgiveness or redemption for the wrong doings they have committed.

So? Maybe that's a good thing - that people are held responsible for their actions. I think the idea that there is an ultimate redemption for sin is actually a very dangerous idea, given the temptation it gives to "sin and confess and all will be okay".

I just don't think that an "active lack of belief in god" is an adequate description to say much about your beliefs. In fact I don't even really know what and active lack of belief is. Do you mean to say that you constantly affirm that lack of belief in God? Again, how is this different from agnosticism?

Uh, I explained how it was different. I.e. "I can't ever know either way (agnosticim), but I don't believe in God (atheism)." It's possible to be both at once.

 

[Kwayera]

As I have expressed, I find such a definition of atheism inadequate as there would be numerous things labeled atheists under such a view - agnostics, cats, dogs, erasers, gofers, unicorns etc.

Yes. And?

 

[Brontecat]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Why you cannot use a religious text to prove God’s existence

The claim here is that the religious text (Bible, Quran, etc) proves that God exists. This argument makes the fallacy of begging the question (or circular reasoning). When the argument is set out clearly this becomes obvious:

How do we know God exists?
God exists because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe the Bible?
Because the Bible is the word of God.
How do we know God exists?
God exists because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe the Bible?
Because the Bible is the word of God.

How do we know God exists?

(etc, ad infinitum.)

You cannot use the conclusion you are trying to prove (that God exists) as one of your premises. The premise “the Bible is the word of God” already assumes the truth of the conclusion.

what about the dead sea scrolls
The Qumran is a town in Jerusalem where there are lots of caves. Within eleven of these caves the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are approximately 900 documents in size, including texts from the Hebrew Bible; they are of high religious and cultural significance dating back to 150BCE.
The dead sea scrolls proved that over time the tanakh (Hebrew or Jewish Bible) had remained exactly the same despite it having been passed down orally and written in different languages.
How else do you explain the fact that something does not change over time - think of how quickly a game of chinese whispers dissolves into a completely different sentence from start to finish.
When this happens it definitely re-affirms my faith that the Bible is the word of God whether the individual be Christian like me or Jewish.

 

[Kwayera]

what about the dead sea scrolls
The Qumran is a town in Jerusalem where there are lots of caves. Within eleven of these caves the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are approximately 900 documents in size, including texts from the Hebrew Bible; they are of high religious and cultural significance dating back to 150BCE.
The dead sea scrolls proved that over time the tanakh (Hebrew or Jewish Bible) had remained exactly the same despite it having been passed down orally and written in different languages.
How else do you explain the fact that something does not change over time - think of how quickly a game of chinese whispers dissolves into a completely different sentence from start to finish.
When this happens it definitely re-affirms my faith that the Bible is the word of God whether the individual be Christian like me or Jewish.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Just because something has passed down unchanged in the oral or print traditions, it does not mean it's divine. Unless you want to apply the same logic to the Epic of Gilgamesh and other ancient texts.

 

[Brontecat]

Jesus never said write down everything i do religion is more about beliefs and actions than about physical evidence

what evidence is there for the scientific belief of the big bang? It all comes back to the same transcendent dimension that there is a higher being that is beyond our capability

 

[Kwayera]

Uh oh, DGE? thread newbie ahead.

You got that right. Life arising from non-life is hard to fathom if you're an atheist but thats how evolution sees it.

Correction: it's hard to fathom if you don't know anything about science. And evolution actually has nothing to say about the ultimate origin of life - for that, you need to check out abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm interesting, to me, attributing morality to God seems much more compelling than biological altruism or evolutionary psychology.

Why? We at least have proof of the mechanisms of evolutionary psychology and the origin of altrusim in organisms (we're not the only animals with social codes of behaviour).

On what grounds? If the whole world thought you were immoral but your own "sense of morality" made you believe that all your actions and thoughts were moral who would be right?

Because basic "morals" (i.e. "don't kill", "don't steal" etc) evolved to cope with living in complex social groups (see The Evolution of Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). They're common to all human groups, so it's not unlikely that other humans would share my "sense of morality".

That's your opinion and as such carries no more weight or backing than my opinion that your view is stupid.

People who believe in being saved from sin think a bit differently on that last point, but seeing as you haven't done your research and you don't know anything about what Christians believe about salvation and God's grace I'll just let you look ignorant.

Well feel free to enlighten me, given it'd be sad if I had as clear an understanding of your religion as you do

No its not. You cannot be both a true atheist and an agnostic. True atheists proudly proclaim absolute conviction that they know God/deities do not exist.

And you claim to know the the "true" definition of atheism? Seeing as you haven't done your research and you don't know anything about what atheists and agnostics believe about I'll just let you look ignorant.

 

[Kwayera]

what evidence is there for the scientific belief of the big bang? It all comes back to the same transcendent dimension that there is a higher being that is beyond our capability

Lots.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BradCube]

This is true. However, why does there need to be an ultimate meaning to life/purpose to existence? Biology doesn't care about meaning; why should you?

Just want to quickly point out before addressing your point, that your admittance to this implication of Gods non-existence serves as proof that the implications for Gods non-existence are further reaching than that of a fairies. Hence, I feel on this point alone that I have been able to show you I believe these implications not only "because of my belief in God".

Now onto your actual point - yes I agree, biology doesn't address meaning. No science addresses the meaning of anything. Meaning is an area of philosophy, but, just because biology has nothing to say about meaning, doesn't mean that I shouldn't! Either way, this implication is still a loss that needs to be given up if we adopt an atheistic world view.

The fallacy there is assuming morality comes from God or religion. It never did - religion may be a representation of our innate morality (i.e. biological altruism, evolutionary psychology, etc - altruism is not a surprise to biology, that needs to be treated like something supernaturally given or inspired), but there is no proof and no need, even, for human morality to have come from God.

Even if this is the case, what you're saying only affirms what I laid out. That is, if there is no God, there is no objective value or morality in life. The only morality that we have is one that we have arbitrarily arrived at (via biological altruism or evolutionary psychology). That is to say, that there is nothing which actually makes these things really objectively right or wrong, they are simply an illusory aid to survival.

I don't know about you, but I am perfectly able to be a "moral" person without binding that sense of morality to a god

Ha ha, well be careful here. The argument is not "can someone be moral without belief in God?". I think they can. Rather the argument is "Can there be objective morals without God?".

Is this a repeat of #1? Either way, why does there need to be an ultimate, divine purpose?

My apologies. Had a bit of a typo there. Point 1 was to address meaning and point 3 was to address purpose.

Well, there doesn't need to be an ultimate purpose to live, but this is another implication of Gods non-existence that isn't applicable for fairies. It's also a large loss, I feel, in switching from a theistic to an atheistic world view. It seems you can't help but end up in nihilism.

So? Maybe that's a good thing - that people are held responsible for their actions. I think the idea that there is an ultimate redemption for sin is actually a very dangerous idea, given the temptation it gives to "sin and confess and all will be okay".

Oh I certainly agree that it would be good to stop a mentality that says "sin and confess and all will be okay", but I think this even if there is forgiveness of sins! Never having forgiveness of wrong doings when you are sincere in your regret for those decisions is quite still quite a loss and another implication of what you're giving up when affirming the non-existence of God.

Uh, I explained how it was different. I.e. "I can't ever know either way (agnosticim), but I don't believe in God (atheism)." It's possible to be both at once.

I don't understand how your definition of atheism is different if it's meaning includes agnosticism.

 

[moll.]

lol Kway. Even I've given up on this thread and all the trolls.
Hey now that you're a mod you could ban the idiotic ones. Like medicineasian. Cos he quite obviously is trolling.
Not so sure about Brontecat.

 

[Kwayera]

Just want to quickly point out before addressing your point, that your admittance to this implication of Gods non-existence serves as proof that the implications for Gods non-existence are further reaching than that of a fairies. Hence, I feel on this point alone that I have been able to show you I believe these implications not only "because of my belief in God".

What?

Now onto your actual point - yes I agree, biology doesn't address meaning. No science addresses the meaning of anything. Meaning is an area of philosophy, but, just because biology has nothing to say about meaning, doesn't mean that I shouldn't! Either way, this implication is still a loss that needs to be given up if we adopt an atheistic world view.

I don't understand why that would be the case or even if it was, an important one given it's.. not relevant to anything?

Even if this is the case, what you're saying only affirms what I laid out. That is, if there is no God, there is no objective value or morality in life. The only morality that we have is one that we have arbitrarily arrived at (via biological altruism or evolutionary psychology). That is to say, that there is nothing which actually makes these things really objectively right or wrong, they are simply an illusory aid to survival.

In that case, why the need for an objective right or wrong, when everyone arrives at the same conclusion anyway as a product of our biology?

Ha ha, well be careful here. The argument is not "can someone be moral without belief in God?". I think they can. Rather the argument is "Can there be objective morals without God?".

Again, why the importance of objective morals?

Well, there doesn't need to be an ultimate purpose to live, but this is another implication of Gods non-existence that isn't applicable for fairies. It's also a large loss, I feel, in switching from a theistic to an atheistic world view. It seems you can't help but end up in nihilism.

I mean, your ultimate purpose to life could be to live your life, and that doesn't necessarily need a god. I don't understand why your God holds court over purpose, either.

Oh I certainly agree that it would be good to stop a mentality that says "sin and confess and all will be okay", but I think this even if there is forgiveness of sins! Never having forgiveness of wrong doings when you are sincere in your regret for those decisions is quite still quite a loss and another implication of what you're giving up what affirming the non-existence of God.

Why? I mean, the victim or relatives of the victim can forgive - and that's their right more than any God's. Forgiveness does not rest on a God.

I don't understand how your definition of atheism is different if it's meaning includes agnosticism.

Because atheism without agnosticism states quite frankly "there is no god", without any reference to our ability to know that or not. Expanded, agnostic atheism is "I don't think we can ever know if there is a God, but on balance with the extremely low likelihood of such a being's existence, I do not believe a God exists."

 

[BradCube]

Yes. And?

And so a definition of atheism that defines not only atheists, but agnostics, dogs, cats erasers and gofers cannot be used as a definition at all. It does not define anything.

 

[BradCube]

i know this is a stupid question and not related to the topic (sorri mods i'll delete my post later) but what exactly is trolling?

A troll is basically someone that goes through forums and posts messages only to annoy other users and encourage arguement.

Trolling is what a troll does.

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

 

[Kwayera]

And so a definition of atheism that defines not only atheists, but agnostics, dogs, cats erasers and gofers cannot be used as a definition at all. It does not define anything.

Sure it can. It's the antithesis of a definition (theism), and I don't know about you, but I don't know of any theist cats That's why I say atheism is a default position.

 

[Lukybear]

What do you mean by saying my "free will guarrentees the right of choice in salvation or eternal salvation"? There is no free will. Because of God's predestination, I play little or no part in my posthumous existence.

But there is free will. It may seem contrived and a simple paradox, but rest assured that there is free will.

I in my lack of wisdom and intellect cannot seem to grasp the idea and many still dont. But then again, we dont posses the mind of God. I know that this road block is humorous to a degree and will probably be mocked by, but its a mere digression and matters not to the original arugment of choice of believing, or to belief in Christ.

I don't believe that all can be explained by science, at least not at the moment. I am content in knowing that there are things I will never know, such as the origin of the universe. If I were to believe in the big bang, I, like many religious people, would have to ask "but what instigated that"? To me, there is no answer to such questions.

What do you mean by "difficult to believe"? Do we have to strain ourselves in order to achieve belief? To most, it seems as though it has flowed easily and naturally.

What is the degree of conviction that is needed for your belief in God (discounting that nothing can be proven)? Seeing with your own eyes? DNA evidence to proove that Jesus is God's son?

The evidence for God, and for many who newly believed, i.e. new converts, is the Bible. What i was reffering to in science is how it discredits miracles, and the ultimate miracle of Christ's rise from the dead. These things you must take as true for ultimate belief in God, and science had made it very difficult.

I do praise you for your questions, they are quite inteliigent.