Atheism?

[Irn-Bru]

But what he really said is more akin to "I believe in God because I believe in God" (that's tautological).

Can you cite which post you have in mind? Nothing that's been said so far has struck me as being equivalent to that phrase. Most people seem to be saying "I believe in God because the universe has a cause."

[Irn-Bru]

The question is, "What is the cause of everything?"

Just out of curiosity, what is your answer to that question, IB?

God.

[Irn-Bru]

The question is, "What is the cause of everything?"

Just out of curiosity, what is your answer to that question, IB?

Stand by for cop out lol

I think you may be confused (which would explain my confusion).

He addressed that to me, not to the one guy who's copped out of multiple lines of argumentation in this thread . . .

[Irn-Bru]

Being a fellow atheist myself

So, then how do you answer the question?

Science!

That doesn't really answer the question, now does it?

I'd go further than that and say science gives us demonstrations that God exists. So cville is right, though he doesn't take the next step.

[DarthMonk]

One thing that has always bothered me about believers - no evidence they can share. It's always some personal epiphany.

One thing that has always bothered me about athiests - they say there is no onus on them to prove a negative. Bull.

While lying in bed one night (at around age 5) I remember pondering the following 2 questions? Where did everything come from? If from god, who made god?

No one has ever provided me with a truly good answer to either. This includes some very deep thinkers from all walks of life.

Sagan was non-commital and said something like "Athiests have to know a lot more than I do."

Agnostic here. No real evidence either way. I decided it's best to live my life under the assumption that there is no god while remaining open to the possibility. If there is one I hear s/he is typically pretty forgiving. Doesn't make much sense to me that s/he would condemn me for not believing.

Question: Can either claim:

(1) God exists.

(2) There is no god.

be tested for possible wrongness while we are alive?

I find it interesting that many pagan religions throughout early history often asked (compelled) familys to sacrifice their first son to ensure prosperity of some sort and that the christian god apparently did just that.

Finally - A disproof of god's existence would be the end of religion. So would a proof.

DarthMonk

[cvillehog]

But what he really said is more akin to "I believe in God because I believe in God" (that's tautological).

Can you cite which post you have in mind? Nothing that's been said so far has struck me as being equivalent to that phrase. Most people seem to be saying "I believe in God because the universe has a cause."

Skinsjock said: "the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation."

As for the universe has a cause thing, throughout history, things humans didn't understand have been attributed to supernatural beings right up to the time science found an explanation (and often long after, but that's another story).

Just because a person doesn't understand the science of how complexity comes to evolve (here's an interesting video that simply demonstrates evolution: http://vimeo.com/18998570) doesn't make it not true, and it doesn't provide a proof that there is a God. And it doesn't solve the problems of Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence and Omniscience, which present any number of logical paradoxes. One of which I brought up earlier, but which went mostly ignored in this thread (in favor of a shouting match about a whole bunch of other nonsense).

And none of that changes the fact that answers to questions that religion knew with 1000% confidence because God said so turned out to be absolutely and demonstrably wrong. The standard explanation is that it was men that were wrong and God is still infallible, but then why am I supposed to believe anything else that men say is God's word? Even if you believe in God, I can't imagine how you could justify trusting anything that any person said about Him ever. But I guess that's a different issue (and not really in conflict with the type of religiousness many of the people here have professed).

[cvillehog]

science gives us demonstrations that God exists

How so?

[Irn-Bru]

science gives us demonstrations that God exists

How so?

My answer relies on an agreement on the meaning of the term "science." Most contemporaries hold that science is strictly the work of forming testable predictions about the universe, primarily through data gathering and pattern recognition. (That is, modern science is very much the brainchild of Francis Bacon.)

I don't think that definition of science includes the demonstrations of God's existence that I'm talking about.

What I mean by "science" is a broader, and in my opinion more coherent, definition of the term held by many philosophers (past and present). I view science as the organized body of knowledge produced by demonstrations from first principles.

So, for example, I count geometry as a science, even though its method is one of deduction and not induction. (That is, one does geometry by reasoning from prior definitions or proofs, not by going around and collecting geometrical shapes and comparing them.)

If that distinction is granted, my answer should be fairly clear. Science gives us demonstrations of God's existence, in that we can form sound arguments from first principles that (if true) would lead us to that conclusion. These arguments come from conceptual truths we can deduce from the nature/definition of being. (And that's typically where eyes start to glaze over . . .)

I admit that my one-liner above was a little deceptive. No claims here that I have an experiment you can run. Sorry if I disappointed on that front.

[cvillehog]

science gives us demonstrations that God exists

How so?

My answer relies on an agreement on the meaning of the term "science." Most contemporaries hold that science is strictly the work of forming testable predictions about the universe, primarily through data gathering and pattern recognition. (That is, modern science is very much the brainchild of Francis Bacon.)

I don't think that definition of science includes the demonstrations of God's existence that I'm talking about.

What I mean by "science" is a broader, and in my opinion more coherent, definition of the term held by many philosophers (past and present). I view science as the organized body of knowledge produced by demonstrations from first principles.

So, for example, I count geometry as a science, even though its method is one of deduction and not induction. (That is, one does geometry by reasoning from prior definitions or proofs, not by going around and collecting geometrical shapes and comparing them.)

If that distinction is granted, my answer should be fairly clear. Science gives us demonstrations of God's existence, in that we can form sound arguments from first principles that (if true) would lead us to that conclusion. These arguments come from conceptual truths we can deduce from the nature/definition of being. (And that's typically where eyes start to glaze over . . .)

I admit that my one-liner above was a little deceptive. No claims here that I have an experiment you can run. Sorry if I disappointed on that front.

So, let's grant your loose definition of science...

Still missing the proof, sorry.

[Irn-Bru]

But what he really said is more akin to "I believe in God because I believe in God" (that's tautological).

Can you cite which post you have in mind? Nothing that's been said so far has struck me as being equivalent to that phrase. Most people seem to be saying "I believe in God because the universe has a cause."

Skinsjock said: "the fact that they 'believe' IS the explanation."

Ah, I see. I don't think SkinsJock meant "I believe in God because I believe in God." He was pointing out that people who posit God as the cause of the universe are not the ones who have yet to explain where things came from. They are saying that God is the cause. (This is all contra Hitchens in the video ATX linked to.)

The context, I think, makes that fairly clear. JSPB has already made this clarification, though, and it didn't seem to take. Maybe I'm just missing something.

As for the universe has a cause thing, throughout history, things humans didn't understand have been attributed to supernatural beings right up to the time science found an explanation (and often long after, but that's another story).

Just because a person doesn't understand the science of how complexity comes to evolve doesn't make it not true, and it doesn't provide a proof that there is a God.

Sure. That's all very nice. However, it doesn't addresses the argument that the universe's very existence requires a cause, and that that cause must be something other than the universe.

Human beings have long credited God with many natural phenomena, but the 'ultimate question' doesn't fall into the same class as other mysteries (e.g., why did that rock fall, or why did the sun seem to disappear, or why did rotten food make me sick). And in the history of philosophy the ultimate question has always been very much distinct from the other questions — conceptually it's always been on its own playing field. So it doesn't do the argument justice to try to lump it together with other questions that have since been answered.

And it doesn't solve the problems of Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence and Omniscience, which present any number of logical paradoxes. One of which I brought up earlier, but which went mostly ignored in this thread (in favor of a shouting match about a whole bunch of other nonsense).

Well, I for one would find it rather surprising if a proof that God existed also resolved all of those potential paradoxes in one fell swoop. That's asking a lot from a syllogism.

I don't think these paradoxes are irresolvable, but we have to at least admit they are different questions than "does the existence of the universe as we know it lend creedance to there being a God"? It muddies the issue by bringing them in too early.

[Irn-Bru]

So, let's grant your loose definition of science...

Still missing the proof, sorry.

I didn't give the proof. I answered the question of "how so?" science can give us a demonstration of the existence of God.

I think the proofs given by Aristotle (in his Physics and Metaphysics) and Thomas Aquinas (in his Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles) are sound. Jacques Maritain is a modern author who deals with these arguments in a more readable fashion.

I could post the arguments in a short form but I am 100% certain you'd find them less than satisfying in that state. It'd be like offering a skeptical person with no physics background an explanation of gravity in one sentence. They would probably throw their hands up at all the jargon: "warp," "space-time," "mass," etc. So if you are looking for me to condense these short-book-length ideas into a digestible THN post, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. But for anyone who is interested, the arguments are (as always) there for the reading.

[Irn-Bru]

One thing that has always bothered me about believers - no evidence they can share. It's always some personal epiphany.

Can you define what you mean when you say "evidence"? Would an argument from reason drawing on common experience count?"

If not, are you saying such arguments are strictly "personal epiphanies"?

[DarthMonk]

One thing that has always bothered me about believers - no evidence they can share. It's always some personal epiphany.

Can you define what you mean when you say "evidence"? Would an argument from reason drawing on common experience count?"

If not, are you saying such arguments are strictly "personal epiphanies"?

Common experience could be evidence for something. I have not yet had a believer give me a good answer to the questions I posed using common experience + reason to give anything remotely close to a proof. Personal epiphanies are "cosmic" experiences that are not shared. They are personal and as such are not shared evidnece.

An earlier poster mentioned one as HIS "evidence."

DarthMonk

[cvillehog]

So, let's grant your loose definition of science...

Still missing the proof, sorry.

I didn't give the proof. I answered the question of "how so?" science can give us a demonstration of the existence of God.

I think the proofs given by Aristotle (in his Physics and Metaphysics) and Thomas Aquinas (in his Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles) are sound. Jacques Maritain is a modern author who deals with these arguments in a more readable fashion.

I could post the arguments in a short form but I am 100% certain you'd find them less than satisfying in that state. It'd be like offering a skeptical person with no physics background an explanation of gravity in one sentence. They would probably throw their hands up at all the jargon: "warp," "space-time," "mass," etc. So if you are looking for me to condense these short-book-length ideas into a digestible THN post, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. But for anyone who is interested, the arguments are (as always) there for the reading.

Well, that's certainly an interesting rhetorical tactic...

[Irn-Bru]

Common experience could be evidence for something. I have not yet had a believer give me a good answer to the questions I posed using common experience + reason to give anything remotely close to a proof. Personal epiphanies are "cosmic" experiences that are not shared. They are personal and as such are not shared evidnece.

I obviously can't defend the arguments of every theist or their methods for arriving at theism. However, I can say there are arguments for the existence of God that do not rely on personal epiphanies. I've already mentioned Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, but another modern philosopher I like is Alvin Plantinga.

Maybe the average person who believes in God relies either on faith or on bad arguments, neither of which are going to be convincing to you. But it would be a mistake to conclude that the rank and file represent all there is when it comes to defensible proofs.

[Irn-Bru]

Well, that's certainly an interesting rhetorical tactic...

What do you mean?

[cvillehog]

Well, that's certainly an interesting rhetorical tactic...

What do you mean?

I don't think i've come across an argument quite like "the reasoning can't be adequately summarized here." That's all.

I've read some Aristotle and Aquinas and found them both unconvincing, but I can't adequately summarize the reasons here, so instead you should read the top three best-selling books on atheism and consider them accurate reflections of what I would say here if I could fit it all in.

[Irn-Bru]

Well, that's certainly an interesting rhetorical tactic...

What do you mean?

I don't think i've come across an argument quite like "the reasoning can't be adequately summarized here." That's all.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is more reasonable, given the constraints of the subject matter.

[cvillehog]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is more reasonable, given the constraints of the subject matter.

You mean the bit about reading the top three books? Of course it's not reasonable. That was the point! (And hence the smiley.)

[Deadskins]

One thing that has always bothered me about believers - no evidence they can share. It's always some personal epiphany.

Can you define what you mean when you say "evidence"? Would an argument from reason drawing on common experience count?"

If not, are you saying such arguments are strictly "personal epiphanies"?

Common experience could be evidence for something. I have not yet had a believer give me a good answer to the questions I posed using common experience + reason to give anything remotely close to a proof. Personal epiphanies are "cosmic" experiences that are not shared. They are personal and as such are not shared evidnece.

An earlier poster mentioned one as HIS "evidence."

DarthMonk

I assume you are referring to me with this statement. If you'd like, I will recount this experience for you, but as I said I have no way of proving to you that it happened, so it will be unsatisfying to anyone but me that it is proof of God's existence. Also, this was not an epiphany for me, as I have always believed in the existence of God, for as long as I can remember, and have seen evidence of his existence throughout my life before this experience.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is more reasonable, given the constraints of the subject matter.

You mean the bit about reading the top three books? Of course it's not reasonable. That was the point! (And hence the smiley.)

No, I mean the bit about my post being "rhetorical," and not an honest statement.

[cvillehog]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is more reasonable, given the constraints of the subject matter.

You mean the bit about reading the top three books? Of course it's not reasonable. That was the point! (And hence the smiley.)

No, I mean the bit about my post being "rhetorical," and not an honest statement.

Ah, no, you misunderstand. Rhetoric meaning discourse. No implication of dishonesty.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure there's any meaning of "rhetorical" that's synonymous with "dishonest." At least, not any way I've seen it.

[Irn-Bru]

Ah, no, you misunderstand. Rhetoric meaning discourse. No implication of dishonesty.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure there's any meaning of "rhetorical" that's synonymous with "dishonest." At least, not any way I've seen it.

In my experience that's what people intend when using it to categorize an argument. Merriam-Webster's also lists it as one of the definitions. But at any rate if you didn't intend that, then it doesn't really matter.

Let me rephrase: I meant that I wasn't sure what was supposed to be more reasonable than admitting I can't do the argument justice in this small space.

[cvillehog]

Ah, no, you misunderstand. Rhetoric meaning discourse. No implication of dishonesty.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure there's any meaning of "rhetorical" that's synonymous with "dishonest." At least, not any way I've seen it.

In my experience that's what people intend when using it to categorize an argument. Merriam-Webster's also lists it as one of the definitions. But at any rate if you didn't intend that, then it doesn't really matter.

Let me rephrase: I meant that I wasn't sure what was supposed to be more reasonable than admitting I can't do the argument justice in this small space.

Not sure why we're talking about reasonableness still...

Maybe it would be better to trade interesting videos back and forth?

Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion, in which he says a lot of stuff, including that religiousness is an evolutionary imperative (which I think is quite an interesting thought). Here's an interview with him on CBC's The Hour from (I think) 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMqTEfeqvmM

[Irn-Bru]

Not sure why we're talking about reasonableness still...

Unfortunately, one-liners often require clarification or explanation. So it took a few posts to actually say what should have taken one.