Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now</arg> Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (3)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1676-1700 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 18:11:46 BDT
E. Jones says:
Indeed Shakepen, the lack of any real evidence is overwhelming. Its silence speaks volumes. But then again, I would never subscribe to the God presented by most Christians. My personal feeling is that there may well be something beyond this existence - or not. But I can't possibly argue for or against it with any real conviction because there is no evidence of life after death and obviously there can be no evidence to the contrary - you can't prove a negative, especially of that nature.

What baffles me is how nasty and filled with self-righteous indignation the combatants of this argument become. It rather belies the whole "Christian" approach to life, or am I missing something here?
Eliza Jones

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 18:15:15 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Apr 2012 18:16:24 BDT
E. Jones says:
Mr Glendinning

I can't tell whether you are saying you believe in God or not.

Just because you believe in something you didn't before and now realise that something else is not what it at first appears, does not really prove the existence of God. Would that it were that simple!

Eliza Jones

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 18:35:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 14:25:55 BDT
Spin says:
Like you guys know or can expreess anything about "Religon". Every belief has faults, every belief sees the universsal world. If you want to adhere to a "lord of the "rings\" attitude, go ahead. Reality will make you blame others for your fooolishnesss, Sciece and religion dictates how you think. You think in terms of what you are your taught. (Slainte.To you ignoramuses =)

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 20:56:21 BDT
Hello Eliza,

Rd certainly doesn't believe in God.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 23:28:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 02:06:54 BDT
Christopher says:
Hi Tom,

'Belief in God is not just a religious belief. God is the transcendent cause necessary to explain universe making things.

It also explains the possibility of free will and the spiritual that we see around us. '

You have often asserted that scientists have no place inferring anything about god from their accrued expertise. Dawkins certainly, and now I think you dismiss Krauss. It can't have escaped you that the first part of the quote above is a very scientific statement. What I heard feser say, and what I'm guessing you're meaning here, something like,
'matter could not exist for a moment without god,' and also 'from nothing, nothing comes'.
You seem to have positioned yourself so that you won't accept that the physical observable world can offer us anything in our investigation of god or the 'mental', but build philosophical arguments on very scientific assertions about the way things are, and how so. Yet if a physicist or evolutionary biologist tries to infer something about the god hypothesis from their own expertise you would assure them they have no place doing so. Personally I think I'd often rather hear a leading scientist's opinion based on their findings, then that of someone who's been mulling it all over, over a pot of tea.
Meanwhile, integral to your philosophical arsenal are elusive statements like such and such about matter, and from nothing... These are statements about the way things are in our world. They are statements which bear on scientific understanding. Where did they come from? Are they testable? Are they falsifiable claims? Are they not just something somebody thought up?
This is another of my problems accepting the philosophical deduction of god. It's based on scientific premises right? On what basis can you discard the opinion of physicists in favour of your own, when you build your argument upon statements about the physical world?

As for the free will thing, I may be missing something but I don't understand why you're bringing it up. Is there a logical inconsistency with the idea there is no free will. It sounds like you're saying you simply know that we have free will, or that nobody would want to be without it, so therefore god is real.
Did you listen to what Sam Harris says? How does it fit?
I havnt got Fesers book yet, it's not available in ebook form anymore! I did listen to a rather long talk he gave and found it interesting, though I did find him quite pompous. He's almost too confident to take seriously. I guess in the view of a surveilling god it's important to convince oneself of some certitude. My point really being that I think certainty about things that can't be known is a recipe to hit some rocks. He has a story that just about explains all he knows and looks to have stretched it to explain all that could be known. It's a theory of everything and he appears under the illusion that he now understands everything. It just seems it's not open to revision. If we're to put our trust in science then we have to be open to changing our mind, and the theist clearly has a lot more riding on not doing so. Can I ask, would you believe in Christianity if the philosophical arguments weren't known to you? I.e. is the bible alone enough evidence to believe as you do?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 00:26:08 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 00:41:08 BDT
K. Moss says:
Hi Eliza.

Re. your comment - "What baffles me is how nasty and filled with self-righteous indignation the combatants of this argument become. It rather belies the whole "Christian" approach to life, or am I missing something here?"

Firstly, I would agree that sometimes we do see people's emotions getting away from them - but on the whole, one encouraging characteristic of this forum is that people with profound differences of worldview, based upon fundamental metaphysical beliefs about the nature of reality, do actually treat each other with a great deal of patience and respect.

Secondly, it would be entirely inaccurate to accuse the 'Christian' (broad use of label) camp as having cornered the market in nastiness and self-righteous indignation. There is certainly plenty of those qualities to go around. It would certainly be nice to see less of such characteristics, but unfortunately they do seem to be endemic to human nature, rather than either the prerequisite for, or product of, religious belief.

Kevin

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 00:39:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 00:42:51 BDT
K. Moss says:
Hi Shakepen.

Modern science is built upon the presuppositions of methodological naturalism (MN). MN is a proposed condition or constraint upon the practice of proper science, which means that the evidence base from which current science is conducted does NOT include the belief that there is such a person as God, and it therefore does not take any account of established truths which would form part of a Christian worldview. Eugenie Scott, of the NCSE says "Science neither denies or opposes the supernatural, but ignores the supernatural for methodological reasons." ('Darwin Prosecuted: Review of Johnson's 'Darwin on Trial'').

Your argument appears to be that science has been unable to come up with any evidence for God, but surely the real truth is that (assuming MN) it would not be able to take such evidence into account, because it does not accord with the constraints of MN. Thus science must inevitably come up with answers that will always exclude the divine. It is not that science has been unable to discover evidence of God - science, by its own self-imposed limitation, simply has nothing to say on the matter.

Kevin

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 02:23:25 BDT
Tom M says:
nothingsperfect

Who made the bible?

Who had the authority to decide even what the bible is?

They also have the authority to teach the content they authorized obviously.

They are not biblical fundamentalists as you apparently.

It is not that the bible is stupid , but rather that the bible is read stupidly.

It's your prerogative to read the bible you didn't select or authorize in a manner contrary to the actual authority instituted by Christ, but they wll just point out that you are reading their book in a silly and naive manner unbefitting a rational human being.

So by all means continue your simplistic and childish approach to the bible and religion but don't confuse your fundamentalist ravings with what religious people , other than a few religious nuts believe.

You obviously find this approach satisfying some need you have, but if you really believe that others take so stupid an approach as you suggest , then may I suggest you wake up to reality?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 02:26:33 BDT
Tom M says:
Christopher . You're using a 'knowledge' model that determines your responses and its incoherent. Not you.. it. :-)

Did you order "THe Last Superstition"?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 02:28:25 BDT
Tom M says:
E Jones

Get the book I recommended to Christopher so you will at least get an idea of what causes are and are not. Most here are diehard empiricists and into scientism which is a gross misuse of science.

Might as well live and die at least knowing a little bit.

Posted on 24 Apr 2012 02:36:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Apr 2012 02:43:32 BDT
Tom M says:
Shakepen

It's ironic that your first claim is the statement of pure incoherence. And there is not even the slightest evidence against God, or the uncaused cause. Not a hint.

Where did you get this stuff. Even most would-be atheists know that atheism cannot ever be proved. God can in theory, but atheism never. Curious fact about our universe.

Actually , if you knew anything about it or read any books or paid attention to posts here, you would see that there are any number of philosophical arguments for the existence of God, a universe full of evidence and philosophical arguments that even include a symbolic logic proof of the ontological argument.

You will also note that an infinite series of conditioned causes is of course impossible.

Hume really wasn't a lot more intelligent than Aristotle.

You are offering the argument from ignorance. I thought you were at least going to get a book or two before you drowned in the incoherencies of empiricism.

I posted one of Hume's primary empiricist dogmas on epistemolgy and no one had a criticism of it.

Not Rd. not Drew .. not any big fans of empiricism. But it has a fatal flaw, long known.

If it is scientifically proven that any expanding universe or putative and undemonstrably existing so-called universe(s) must be finite in the past. This requires something transcendent for a cause.
How can you make such odd claims?

Do you really imagine that you're better educated than some 85% of the world on these matters or have you just picked up the common empiricist virus that's been going on since Hume's terrible ideas. Do you think you are immune from them? Do you think the english speaking world was and is immune? I'm afraid not.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 05:47:13 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom M: have you not been reading any of my posts? Over the past several weeks, I have argued that God is metaphysical. Let me put it this way: the Apostalic Fathers from the very beginning of Christianity argued "Faith." Even Paul in a pre-scientific era over a thousand years before science was ever thought of, talked about Faith. In the OT, Faith is constantly mentioned directly or implied. Even in those days, without science, without our modern sophistication, the Apostalic Fathers knew that Jesus could not be "proved" to be the Son of God! (I hope you're staying with me!) What people needed as they did in the OT was a moral certainty that what they believed was correct because it could never be "proved."

This fact, which is centuries old, has led me to suggest an internal reality, separate from science, which is based (and depends) on Faith. If you are really a Christian, the fact that science cannot validate your Faith means nothing to you. The stronger your Faith, the easier your passage into heaven.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 05:55:31 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom M.: Incidentally, I don't give two figs what Hume or any other philosopher has said! Faith is not a matter of committe or "philosophical experts." In fact, I can almost declare with complete confidence that philosophy is either dead or on life-support! Why do we need the internal musings of men who don't ever use the findings of modern science for guidance or for evidence of their theories? On this site and others, people prate about Aristotle et al. In the same voice, these same people attack the existence and morality of Jesus. Really, Aristotle was 300 years before Jesus. Hume was in the same tradition as Aristotle, a philosopher, and one who chould have made better use of the science of his day! I'd like to quote Shaw with a slight change: ""He who can, does. He who cannot, philosophizes!"

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 10:53:10 BDT
Hi JJ

You have taken me up on a post that I wrote to Reson, over six weeks ago, on page 1 of this forum.

You say:

>>> Paul, I must explain that the world is viewed by humans from a very biased perspective (going back to the whole "Earth is the centre of the universe" and "man was made in God's image" malarky that even many Christians now accept to be a bit silly, the Pope even acknowledged evolution in 1997), in fact there is no reason to say that "we" are better than any other animal, plant, or even rock! After all, why should we be? many men of faith and scientists alike try to explain the apparent "mystery" that the universe is so well suited to life (3 dimensions, gravity and the rest) by invoking God or wild Multiverse theories (which may both be true, though there is no hard evidence). In fact the universe is not well suited to life, it is very badly suited for life, in a typical cubic mile of universe there is maybe an ounce or two of hydrogen and a few bits of dust and rock, hardly the garden of Eden!

So why do you believe that this post of yours is in any way a reply to my questions to Reson and Mark. Let's see what I actually wrote *and asked*:
_________________________________________
Hi Reson

You say

>>> Origin of the Universes.
There is no great mystery that lies behind the existence of a Universe as religionists would have us BELIEVE.

Please tell me more. If you believe that there is no mystery, you should be able to answer the question that I asked Mark (who had claimed that it is possible to explain our Universe without invoking God: "Can you please explain how it is possible to explain our Universe without invoking God.").

>>> A Universe is as simple and natural as a tree.

O yes!?

>>> There is no GREAT MYSTERIOUS BEING who created the Universe

Then tell me your own explanation!

>>> and went off some place never to be seen again.

When, apart from in Jesus Christ, was He seen in the first place?

>>> We have never been taught that just as all living beings have a nature of their own passed on to them by Absolute Nature, Absolute Nature itself has a Nature which is called THE NATURE OF NATURE.

I am not sure what you mean by all of this.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your own explanation of the universe, without mystery, and without God.

Best wishes

Paul
______________________________________

Let's now look at your own post on the subject:

You write:

>>> Paul, I must explain that the world is viewed by humans from a very biased perspective

Different biases, depending on the humans, their education, their environment and their free choices.

>>> (going back to the whole "Earth is the centre of the universe"

You can think of the `centre' as the original point of the big bang, if you like. You may or may not be right according to your definition. I may or may not agree with your conclusion, but, for practical purposes, even if the earth is not the `actual' centre, it is good to see, as the central reality for man, firstly God, and secondly, at our centre, His beautiful little earth, with life, and man, and all the glorious mystery behind it all, all the discoveries to be made, the life to be led, the love and joy to be given and received... All of this, for us, at least for the time being, takes place on earth, `our centre.'

>>> and "man was made in God's image" malarkey

No malarkey.

In the same way as you cannot explain the intelligible universe, you cannot explain intelligible man, with his consciousness, conscience, common sense, reason, freedom, science, art, philosophy, theology... and all the rest, without Intelligent God.

>>> that even many Christians now accept to be a bit silly,

Not orthodox Christians, I can assure you.

>>> the Pope even acknowledged evolution in 1997),

Orthodox Christians, including popes, have believed in the evolution of the universe and life on earth for much longer than that. We see the evolution of the universe (in modern terms since the so-called big bang, 13.7 billion years ago), and then of life on earth, as God's means to an end, at least part of which is man, and Jesus Christ His Only Son, in particular. He made the intelligible matter and the intelligible laws of the universe, from which it has intelligibly evolved. Mere `accidents' do not explain all of this intelligibility. Only Intelligent and Almighty God does this.

>>>in fact there is no reason to say that "we" are better than any other animal, plant, or even rock!

I like your exclamation mark! You believe what you like. When you have an interesting philosophical conversation with a rock, come back and tell us about it.

>>> After all, why should we be?

Because you have the freedom to be so.

>>> many men of faith and scientists alike try to explain the apparent "mystery" that the universe is so well suited to life (3 dimensions, gravity and the rest) by invoking God or wild Multiverse theories (which may both be true, though there is no hard evidence). In fact the universe is not well suited to life, it is very badly suited for life, in a typical cubic mile of universe there is maybe an ounce or two of hydrogen and a few bits of dust and rock, hardly the garden of Eden!

And yet earth and life and man arose in it. One might almost suppose that it was planned that way!

So, tell us, to get back to the actual question:

"Can you please explain how it is possible to explain our Universe without invoking God."

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 11:11:49 BDT
What 'process of abiogenesis'? I am not aware of any.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 11:34:06 BDT
AJ Murray says:
K. Moss,

You have very skewed view of science and methodological naturalism. There is no definition of what constitutes the so-called 'supernatural' and no theologian is going to strangle their beliefs by providing something of substance for this term. In fact it makes about as much sense to talk of the subnatural as it does the supernatural - they are positional references.

How about '3 feet to the left of natural'?

Science ignores deities, mainly because those that do believe in a deity have never quite managed to agree on what attributes these things are supposed to have, how they operate, how they exist or anything else for that matter. Science works without these presupposed entities, they turned out to superfluous for explanations that encompass everything we observe. Indeed, often the (my)'goddidit' assertion was a terminus to enquiry.

-"...and it [science] therefore does not take any account of established truths which would form part of a Christian worldview."

Etsablished? Heh. Don't exaggerate. Declaring your beliefs by fiat to be true is presupposition of the worst kind. How ironic you would criticise the assumptions of science yet give your own (unevidenced) beliefs a free pass.

The fact is Kevin, if any of the things you believed were true, they would be included as part of investigation of our reality as embodied by science. They are not. This is because your beliefs do not accord with our models of reality and are a poor fit. We don't have Departments of Demonology, or Faith Healing Wards in Hospitals for the very simple reason; they don't work.

If your deity existed, it would be part of nature and thus come under the remit of science. Declaring it supernatural is just an excuse to deflect attention away from the fact that your deity is thoroughly non-evident.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:08:57 BDT
Hi Paul, are you in a position to reply to my post to you yesterday?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 12:12:15 BDT
I deliberately didn't make my stance clear. I was simply saying that from the neutral position you are in, the evidence could take you one way or the other, depending on what the evidence was.

As it happens I believe no gods exist, from the simple fact of god has every appearance of being an idea created by man without close reference to the evidence. Concepts like that (russels teapot, sasquatch, fairies, leprechauns etc.) almost certainly don't have an actual referent in the real world, so I fell comfortable concluding no god(s) exist(s).

I apologise fo rthe gender confusion...

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:09:32 BDT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Kevin says:- " It is not that science has been unable to discover evidence of God - science, by its own self-imposed limitation, simply has nothing to say on the matter."

I'm not entirely sure that you have the right inference here Kevin.
The only limitations that investigative science puts on its research abilities are those pertaining to the limitations of the technology used to do the research with.
Expectations from the "unknown" are treated as open ended possibilities - blank spaces in understanding that require closer investigation when filled by "surprise" and the "unexpected".
Under such circumstances absolutely anything at all in the 'out' tray that suggested a supernatural touch would have been rigorously examined by both sides of the divide - both pros and cons.
Any consensus arising from this would then take its rightful place in current scientific thought.
It's not a question of ignoring the supernatural element, it's one of not yet finding any result, or reason, to suspect there is one.
Only the metaphysical philosophers seem to be convinced there is one to be found, and yet cannot tell us where to look.
Who knows - one day we may have instrumentation sensitive to test that principle.
Peter

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:15:07 BDT
I have pointed to evidence -- I cannot produce it lifesize here, only tell you, as I have where it can be found. And where have I dismissed entire religions? I think you are muddling me up.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:17:36 BDT
In the Old Testament the Jews projected on to God (clearly they were not thinking of Jesus) their own anxieties and nationalism. in the New Testament itself the Old is re-interpreted.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:18:56 BDT
Jesus is a new, fuller revelation of the true nature of the God of the Old Testament, which had been misinterpreted in the past.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:20:26 BDT
Many modern Christians do not believe in an eternal hell or at least that anyone is in that state, even if it remains a theoretical possibility. Do you know that religion changes-- it is progressive?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:22:40 BDT
You have to learn to read the bible in a more nuanced way. Many of these things reflect the beliefs of the time (eg devils and mental illness, and they continued until the 18th C); others are story ways of presenting spiritual truths. Talk to some modern Christians. Get with it.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 15:24:57 BDT
Because he believes in free will. He does not zap people. As your much despised Old Testament says, he is 'in the still small voice'; he 'does not shout in the streets'. He works through human evolution and development, not by force feeding.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  182
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  6 Mar 2012
Latest post:  10 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers