NationStates Jolt Archive

The most common argument for atheism I have seen:

1. God is not necessary (Ockhams Razor)
2. There is no evidence for God.

My rebuttal:

1. Ockhams Razor:

A. Isn't fact, it is a tool for obtaining facts.

B. Doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it means that knowledge of God's existence isn't important (don't make unnecessary assumptions, such as there is a God. But don't make other unnecessary assumptions either, such as there is no God. Neither are necessary, and so Ockham's Razor says we shouldn't care, although it is commonly misinterpreted)

C. The fact that God's existence isn't necessary means nothing when it comes to the question of whether He exists or not. Humans are far from necessary (in fact, I believe most people will agree with me when I say the world would probably be a better place for all it's other occupants without humans).

2. No evidence for God:

A. There is no evidence against God, either.

-Some point to evolution, but that merely describes how life went from protokaryotes to the billions of complex species we have today, including humankind. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point to abiogenesis, but that merely describes how life went from primodial soup to simple protokaryotes. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point to the Big Bang, but that describes what the universe was probably like from a split second after the beginning until now. The Big Bang requires an enormous source of energy, quite literally all of the energy in existence, for the reaction to occur. In other words, the Big Bang describes how nothing was created (not even anti-matter), it merely explains that science is now almost certain that at the start of the known universe and as far back as science can trace time, everything was bunched up into an infinitesimal speck. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point beyond the Big Bang, saying that science will someday, perhaps even someday soon, know exactly how the universe began. But such an assumption is not scientific. Any good scientist will tell you that you can't reliably predict what science will discover. That's one of the reasons scientists often frustrate the corporate world, they can't give you a solid timetable for what they will discover.

B. There is also no strong evidence for God's non-existence. Sure, strong arguments can be made against a benevolent and omniscient God, but the question is whether He exists, not what He is like.


My point is this: no matter what you believe, when it comes to God, I can gaurantee you that you have no evidence. The invisible pink unicorn theory can apply just as easily to Atheists as to Theists. Ockham's Razor doesn't encourage Atheism, Ockham's Razor encourages agnosticism. Agnostics are the only ones who say "I don't know if there is a flying spaghetti monster". Interestingly enough, there are some agnostics who still seek evidence for or against the flying spaghetti monster (and of course the athists and theists are looking, locked in a perpetual spitting contest).

Really, what it comes down to is this:

Do you think knowing for sure whether God exists is important, or not?



Personally, I am quite certain that there will never be any real evidence on the issue, but if any sort of Divine Being exists, It will probably be more satisfied with my taking an interest in looking for Its existence.

And if no sort of Divine Being exists, then at least I spent my life doing what I felt like doing :D

hmmmm

MY argument for why god doesnt exist goes "all religions are obvious bullshit. any god that might exist cant be bothered to show himself or to let us know what he wants, if anything. even if god DOES exist it is as if he doesnt so what does it matter if he exists or not?"

sure there is some incredibly remote chance that some intelligence started the universe. so what?

Do you think knowing for sure whether God exists is important, or not?

It's inherently impossible to positively deny the existence of God, so the only way to know for sure that God exists/doesn't exists is to prove Its existence. Since I don't believe in God, I think this is impossible. So knowing whether God exists seems unimportant to me, because I think it is impossible to prove/disprove. If you believe God to be the creator of natural processes/laws, then to me the knowing of the effect of those processes/laws is required, while the knowing of their creator is unnecessary.

I will just say one thing, and then leave. To me, God exists well enough, but not physically. He may or may not be floating around with His divine superpowers, but I only think of Him as an idea, one that gives (some) people hope. And, personally, I think creationism would be an insult to God. Because frankly, humans as a whole pretty much suck, and He could've done a better job.

Though i lean toward ashimora's perspective.

Regarding your point

Ockham's Razor doesn't encourage Atheism, Ockham's Razor encourages agnosticism. Agnostics are the only ones who say "I don't know if there is a flying spaghetti monster".

Patently untrue. I'm an atheist, and I don't *know* there is no God. I just don't *believe* in one.

So the old razor incourages both atheism and agnosticism.

It's inherently impossible to positively deny the existence of God, so the only way to know for sure that God exists/doesn't exists is to prove Its existence. Since I don't believe in God, I think this is impossible. So knowing whether God exists seems unimportant to me, because I think it is impossible to prove/disprove. If you believe God to be the creator of natural processes/laws, then to me the knowing of the effect of those processes/laws is required, while the knowing of their creator is unnecessary.

An excellent point. And it seems that you actually understand Ockham's Razor, unlike many Atheists who misinterprate it.

There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?

If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?

I thought that was pretty well written, and had some good points, althought more or less you just said "If God(s) exist then we don't know, if God(s) don't exist then we don't know". Honestly, I think that is the more common view then you lead on to believe. However, overall I enjoyed reading that.

If physics existed properly before the big bang, scientists have predicted that all existence would not have been an infitesmal speck.


And, just so you know, matter and energy are pretty much the same thing. You can turn energy in to matter and matter in to energy pretty easily. If all existence before the big bang was matter, that's all the energy you'd ever need, don't you think?



(EDIT: The clump of all the universe's matter was not only all the universe, but, from what I've heard, around the size of a small planet.)

There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?
If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?
If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?

1. I don't know.
2. If he prevented evil, there would be no free will.
3. Why would he?

There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?

If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?

Those have nothing to do with whether God exists or not, my friend. Those are about the nature of God. Please try to stay more on-topic ;)

There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?

If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?


1 and 2 can be answered from the Christian perspective by the notion of free-will. Our creator gave us free will to destroy our perfection and to create evil. For him to deny either one, would to be denying free will, which I assume God doesn't want. As for 3, I do not think He can destroy Himself. However, since we all have feeble human minds, I think it would be very difficult to answer that question either way.

1. I don't know.
2. If he prevented evil, there would be no free will.
3. Why would he?



1. For fun, all he knows is perfection, why would he experiment with what he simply knows everything about?
2. Yeah, ok on that one.
3. Cuz he's emo.

There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?

If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?

1) Did he create imperfection? Prove it.

2) If he prevented evil, there wouldn't be free-will.

3) What kind of a stupid question is that? It's a contradiction in terms, like a four sided triangle.

If physics existed properly before the big bang, scientists have predicted that all existence would not have been an infitesmal speck.


And, just so you know, matter and energy are pretty much the same thing. You can turn energy in to matter and matter in to energy pretty easily. If all existence before the big bang was matter, that's all the energy you'd ever need, don't you think?



(EDIT: The clump of all the universe's matter was not only all the universe, but, from what I've heard, around the size of a small planet.)

I know fully well that matter is supercondensed energy. Perhaps to make myself more clear, I should have said that the Big Bang would take everything in existence to start the reaction.

I admit, I was unaware that the Big Bang "mass" was roughly the size of a small planet. I'll keep that in mind.

1 and 2 can be answered from the Christian perspective by the notion of free-will. Our creator gave us free will to destroy our perfection and to create evil. For him to deny either one, would to be denying free will, which I assume God doesn't want. As for 3, I do not think He can destroy Himself. However, since we all have feeble human minds, I think it would be very difficult to answer that question either way.

Well said. :)

Agnosticism and Atheism are two different things.
Agnosticism involves what you know.
Athiesm involves what you believe.

I am an Agnostic-athiest.
I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist because I think it is an impossible question to answer.
However, I choose not to believe in God or any other diety.

1. For fun, all he knows is perfection, why would he experiment with what he simply knows everything about?
2. Yeah, ok on that one.
3. Cuz he's emo.

Emo God...that would truly be hell. I think Satan was a ordinary guy that God got pissed at for not wanting to spend all the time listening to shitty music and whining.

The most common argument for atheism I have seen:

1. God is not necessary (Ockhams Razor)
2. There is no evidence for God.

My rebuttal:

1. Ockhams Razor:

A. Isn't fact, it is a tool for obtaining facts.

Quite a useful tool though, let me give you an example:

A tree has been knocked down.
One theory is that the very strong winds which were recorded last night blew it down.
Another theory is that 200 metre tall aliens from a far away planet knocked it down and ran away.
For the second theory to be plausible we must assume the existance of 200 meter tall aliens, assume that they have a way to move under the Earth's gravitational field, are capable of inter-stellar travel, were able to land and move around without being noticed at all despite being 200 metres tall. There are many more assumptions.
I'm sure you will agree that while it isn't guaranteed that the first theory is true and the second wrong it is more reasonable to accept the wind theory.

B. Doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it means that knowledge of God's existence isn't important (don't make unnecessary assumptions, such as there is a God. But don't make other unnecessary assumptions either, such as there is no God. Neither are necessary, and so Ockham's Razor says we shouldn't care, although it is commonly misinterpreted)

Explicit Atheism= belief in no God.
Implicit Atheism= no beleif in God.

Most Atheists are implicit and so your argument is void.

C. The fact that God's existence isn't necessary means nothing when it comes to the question of whether He exists or not. Humans are far from necessary (in fact, I believe most people will agree with me when I say the world would probably be a better place for all it's other occupants without humans).

But the fact that God's existance is unneccessary means that there is no reason to assume that he does exist.

2. No evidence for God:

A. There is no evidence against God, either.

-Some point to evolution, but that merely describes how life went from protokaryotes to the billions of complex species we have today, including humankind. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point to abiogenesis, but that merely describes how life went from primodial soup to simple protokaryotes. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point to the Big Bang, but that describes what the universe was probably like from a split second after the beginning until now. The Big Bang requires an enormous source of energy, quite literally all of the energy in existence, for the reaction to occur. In other words, the Big Bang describes how nothing was created (not even anti-matter), it merely explains that science is now almost certain that at the start of the known universe and as far back as science can trace time, everything was bunched up into an infinitesimal speck. It can be used to correct a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God, but it has nothing to do with God's actual existence.

-Some point beyond the Big Bang, saying that science will someday, perhaps even someday soon, know exactly how the universe began. But such an assumption is not scientific. Any good scientist will tell you that you can't reliably predict what science will discover. That's one of the reasons scientists often frustrate the corporate world, they can't give you a solid timetable for what they will discover.

And how would you expect to find evidence that God doesn't exist? First prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world (and a midget) out of a giant meat ball.

B. There is also no strong evidence for God's non-existence. Sure, strong arguments can be made against a benevolent and omniscient God, but the question is whether He exists, not what He is like.

See the above point.

My point is this: no matter what you believe, when it comes to God, I can gaurantee you that you have no evidence. The invisible pink unicorn theory can apply just as easily to Atheists as to Theists. Ockham's Razor doesn't encourage Atheism, Ockham's Razor encourages agnosticism. Agnostics are the only ones who say "I don't know if there is a flying spaghetti monster". Interestingly enough, there are some agnostics who still seek evidence for or against the flying spaghetti monster (and of course the athists and theists are looking, locked in a perpetual spitting contest).

Occam's razor doesn't encourage agnosticism, atheism requires less assumptions than theism so it is supported by the razor.

If you follow this train of logic then you must agree that it is logical to remain undecided on the FSM, the IPU and invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning.

If physics existed properly before the big bang,


Thats a very big if, considering even after the big bang physics was not the way we know it as today. I have heard that some wacko scientists create new dimensions to try and properly explain what was going on at the time, with the immense heat of the radiation.

Those have nothing to do with whether God exists or not, my friend. Those are about the nature of God. Please try to stay more on-topic ;)
so any being who started the universe is "god" no matter how imperfect he is or accidental the creation was?

is a "god" that is unworthy of worship really a god in your mind?

1. Ockhams Razor:


Occam's.

And by the way, I think Occam's Razor is more along the lines of "assume the simplest explanation" rather than your "assume nothing" interpretation.

It is concievable that God exists in a tangible form somewhere in space and is controlling us using some kind of advanced science which make his actions conform with the accounts of the Bible/Qu'ran/Book of the Subgenius/Ramblings of crazy hobos/Dead Sea Scrolls/Whatever. He could even have physically created the actual Earth itself, but could not have created the entire universe. Nor can a tangible God be omnipresent or omnipotent (although to my knowledge neither of these are mentioned in the Bible or any other mainstream holy book, they're just assumed by modern theology).

I thought that was pretty well written, and had some good points, althought more or less you just said "If God(s) exist then we don't know, if God(s) don't exist then we don't know". Honestly, I think that is the more common view then you lead on to believe. However, overall I enjoyed reading that.

It's an excellent attack on explicit atheism but as most atheists are implicit it does fall down rather.

Just a quick point about Occam's Razor - we should go with the simpler of two theories provided they both offer equally satisfactory explanations. I find that many people seem to forget this bit. Now the obvious question here is does God's existence or His non-existence satisfy more fully the reason for the existence of the universe.

Agnosticism and Atheism are two different things.
Agnosticism involves what you know.
Athiesm involves what you believe.

I am an Agnostic-athiest.
I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist because I think it is an impossible question to answer.
However, I choose not to believe in God or any other diety.

Good point, and welcome to the forums (it's really quite amazing how many new members like to comment when I'm around ;) )

By your definition, I am an Agnostic-Theist. Nice to meet you, but keep in mind that there are those who believe God may exist, the Agnostic-Agnostic. Personally, I think your way of keeping track is very effective for what it keeps track of, but it could get very confusing. Then again, since I think that no one can possibly know anything for certain about the existence God, the everyone is an agnostic-atheist/agnostic/theist, thus making your system unnecessary.

It's an excellent attack on explicit atheism but as most atheists are implicit it does fall down rather.


Agreed.

Just a quick point about Ockham's Razor - we should go with the simpler of two theories provided they both offer equally satisfactory explanations. I find that many people seem to forget this bit. Now the obvious question here is does God's existence or His non-existence satisfy more fully the reason for the existence of the universe.

Good point, but I don't think either of them offer satisfactory explanations. I don't think any satisfactory explanation is available, thus Ockham's Razor doesn't apply in this instance :)

Good point, and welcome to the forums (it's really quite amazing how many new members like to comment when I'm around )

By your definition, I am an Agnostic-Theist. Nice to meet you, but keep in mind that there are those who believe God may exist, the Agnostic-Agnostic. Personally, I think your way of keeping track is very effective for what it keeps track of, but it could get very confusing. Then again, since I think that no one can possibly know anything for certain about the existence God, the everyone is an agnostic-atheist/agnostic/theist, thus making your system unnecessary.
You are quite correct in assuming that I consider everyone to be an agnostic-thiest/agnostic/atheist. My way of organizing can be a little confusing at times(agnostic-agnostic), but I like it anyway. It really is unecessary when dealing with logical, rational, mature people. However, when you start debating with the fundies it helps to be able to clairfy your position as much as possible. :)

Adjectives are just nifty anyway.:p

Agreed.

To be honest explicit atheists really annoy me: they need as much faith as a theist and they frequently attack theists for being gullible.:rolleyes:

Occam's.

http://xtronics.com/reference/ockham.htm

And by the way, I think Occam's Razor is more along the lines of "assume the simplest explanation" rather than your "assume nothing" interpretation.

Simplest satisfactory explanation. I don't think any explanation is satisfactory, so I don't think the Razor applies.

It is concievable that God exists in a tangible form somewhere in space and is controlling us using some kind of advanced science which make his actions conform with the accounts of the Bible/Qu'ran/Book of the Subgenius/Ramblings of crazy hobos/Dead Sea Scrolls/Whatever. He could even have physically created the actual Earth itself, but could not have created the entire universe. Nor can a tangible God be omnipresent or omnipotent (although to my knowledge neither of these are mentioned in the Bible or any other mainstream holy book, they're just assumed by modern theology).

That is why most religions believe that God is either always intangible or can become intangible or something like that.

hmmmm

MY argument for why god doesnt exist goes "all religions are obvious bullshit. any god that might exist cant be bothered to show himself or to let us know what he wants, if anything. even if god DOES exist it is as if he doesnt so what does it matter if he exists or not?"


My explanation is that God was literally a giant, floating superbeing in space and he DID show himself during the old testament but then maybe he died or flew away or something. It is entriely possible that God exists/existed in a completely physical sense, and didn't use any supernatural powers, just science we cannot understand.


sure there is some incredibly remote chance that some intelligence started the universe. so what?

There is no chance that an intelligence actually started the physical universe, because an intelligence requires fixed parameters in which to store information and thought which only the physical universe can logically provide.

You are quite correct in assuming that I consider everyone to be an agnostic-thiest/agnostic/atheist. It really is unecessary when dealing with logical, rational, mature people. However, when you start debating with the fundies it helps to be able to clairfy your position as much as possible. :)

Good point, I'll be sure to bring it up next time I launch an assault against militant atheist fundamentalism :)

Adjectives are just nifty anyway.:p

Adjectives rule all the other parts of speech :D

I know fully well that matter is supercondensed energy. Perhaps to make myself more clear, I should have said that the Big Bang would take everything in existence to start the reaction.

I admit, I was unaware that the Big Bang "mass" was roughly the size of a small planet. I'll keep that in mind.


Also keep in mind that, as Zilam said after I made my post, physics really did not properly exist at that time.

And the big bang was the entire universe exploding. Everything! The entire thing! All at the same time. It also included the ridiculously violent reactions of matter messing with antimatter. As we know now, there was more matter than anti-matter, but I'm getting in to strange ideas and I'm babbling, so I'll stop now.

Good point, I'll be sure to bring it up next time I launch an assault against militant atheist fundamentalism
Yep, fundamentals on both sides of the spectrum are just plain annoying.

Adjectives not only rule all other parts of speech, they do so with an iron fist in a velvet glove.

I don't believe that, as humans, we are mentally equipped to approach such a question. Everything we say is based on subjective opinions and pseudo-historical accounts. Not all religions believe in the same god or even a similar god.

I, on the other hand, believe in a God who isn't "all-powerful" but who, for the sake of shortness is "so close to being all-powerful that we might as well call him that anyway".

In addition, omnibenevolence cannot exist. If there was no evil, we could not understand the concept of "good". Hence, omnibenevolence is a self-destructive concept in itself because if something has no evil (or at least neutrality) it isn't "all-good"... it just is.

Besides, I think that if God wanted us to know He exists and not to believe (i.e., faith) He would have equipped us to understand His mind. I mean, honestly, we're so far from omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient that how do we suppose to try to guess at how such a mind would operate?

In other words, I don't feel like it's my place to question the existence of God based on human logic. I have my logical explanation for it, just for argumentative sake, but really, I don't think that it's impossible to have an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God simply because if He really is omnipotent, He can be whatever He wants to be... whether or not it abides by our logic.

Good point, but I don't think either of them offer satisfactory explanations. I don't think any satisfactory explanation is available, thus Ockham's Razor doesn't apply in this instance :)

Hehe, touche salesman :)

2. If he prevented evil, there would be no free will.

So does God have no free will?

And you can have free will, if God just decides to transport anyone who is about to commit evil to a place where they cannot harm anyone.

Those have nothing to do with whether God exists or not, my friend. Those are about the nature of God. Please try to stay more on-topic

God clearly has certain qualities that make Him "God," and not some petty insignificant mortal like me. I am questioning whether those qualities traditionally ascribed to Him really could exist.

Our creator gave us free will to destroy our perfection and to create evil.

So if only I chose, of my own accord, to live a life without sin, I would be perfect?

Isn't material existence itself inherently imperfect?

As for 3, I do not think He can destroy Himself. However, since we all have feeble human minds, I think it would be very difficult to answer that question either way.

So you acknowledge that God is not, in fact, omnipotent. That's a good starting point for a rational theology. And you can even say that He chooses of His own accord not to be omnipotent, which means that in a sense He really is.

1. For fun, all he knows is perfection, why would he experiment with what he simply knows everything about?

Considering that He's omniscient, I think that question could be asked about anything God does.

1) Did he create imperfection? Prove it.

Didn't He create me? To be fair, I indeed cannot prove my own existence.

3) What kind of a stupid question is that? It's a contradiction in terms, like a four sided triangle.

Indeed, that was the point. The combined attributes of the traditional God mix in contradictory ways.

To be honest explicit atheists really annoy me: they need as much faith as a theist and they frequently attack theists for being gullible.:rolleyes:


Haha, but really I do hate the double standard of the whole thing.

Quite a useful tool though, let me give you an example:

A tree has been knocked down.
One theory is that the very strong winds which were recorded last night blew it down.
Another theory is that 200 metre tall aliens from a far away planet knocked it down and ran away.
For the second theory to be plausible we must assume the existance of 200 meter tall aliens, assume that they have a way to move under the Earth's gravitational field, are capable of inter-stellar travel, were able to land and move around without being noticed at all despite being 200 metres tall. There are many more assumptions.
I'm sure you will agree that while it isn't guaranteed that the first theory is true and the second wrong it is more reasonable to accept the wind theory.

Yes, Ockham's Razor is very useful. I never said it wasn't ;)

Explicit Atheism= belief in no God.
Implicit Atheism= no beleif in God.

Most Atheists are implicit and so your argument is void.

My argument is void against the implicit atheists, not the explicit atheists. I'll be sure to clarify who I am addressing in my opening statement next time.

But the fact that God's existance is unneccessary means that there is no reason to assume that he does exist.

There is also no reason to assume he doesn't exist.

And how would you expect to find evidence that God doesn't exist? First prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world (and a midget) out of a giant meat ball.

How would you expect to find evidence that God doesn't exist if you can't even prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world (and a midget) out of a giant meat ball?

I'm not trying to prove that God exists, I am merely trying to prove that you are just as capable of proving that God doesn't exist as I am that God does exist (which is not capable at all).

Occam's razor doesn't encourage agnosticism, atheism requires less assumptions than theism so it is supported by the razor.

Ockham's Razor means that if two theories provide equally satisfactory explanations, you should use the one that requires less assumptions. However, neither Atheism nor Theism have satisfactory explanations, since no solid evidence is available to support either argument

If you follow this train of logic then you must agree that it is logical to remain undecided on the FSM, the IPU and invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning.

I am not talking about remaining undecided, I am talking about remaining open to the possibility. Invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning were discovered, but science had already decided that they don't exist, then they would have to lie like hell about it. But if they were to remain open to the possibility, they would simply say "Holy shit! Invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning!" and then start researching them.

Why do people feel the need to come here and justify their religion? If you're religious and you're happy good for you. All that justification is just bullshit though.

hmmmm

MY argument for why god doesnt exist goes "all religions are obvious bullshit. any god that might exist cant be bothered to show himself or to let us know what he wants, if anything. even if god DOES exist it is as if he doesnt so what does it matter if he exists or not?"

sure there is some incredibly remote chance that some intelligence started the universe. so what?
Now now, lets not bunch all religions together. Buddhism says the belief in gods is a waste of time.

Now back to the original subject. I do not believe in a god (theres more than just the christian one :D ) I cannot deny the fact that there is a possibility, it is unpossible for me to know, but there might be some time in the future where a God or deity of some sorts is proven. Until then, I am going to continue to follow the eightfold path, because it makes logical sense to me that it brings about the cessation of suffering. :)

Thank you for your time,

Keith

Edt: There are plenty of additional questions that must be answered by theists.

If God is perfect, why did He create imperfection?

If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why doesn't He prevent evil?

If God is omnipotent, eternal, and infinite, can He destroy Himself?
You are thinking in the western God kind of view, what about islam? Judaism? Hindu?


Emo God...that would truly be hell. I think Satan was a ordinary guy that God got pissed at for not wanting to spend all the time listening to shitty music and whining.
I assume you are talking about the Satan from the bible. It clearly explains that he was an angel who was cast down.

so any being who started the universe is "god" no matter how imperfect he is or accidental the creation was?

is a "god" that is unworthy of worship really a god in your mind?
Depends on your definition of God, to another culture they might think of God as a all powerful being, to the west because of the widespread christian views, we automatically think Christian God.

To be honest explicit atheists really annoy me: they need as much faith as a theist and they frequently attack theists for being gullible.
I completely agree. :D I watched a show interviewing lots of people of different faiths they interviewed an atheist, and she was preaching her views on other people, and had an organization to spread her views.

Why do people feel the need to come here and justify their religion? If you're religious and you're happy good for you. All that justification is just bullshit though.
Why do you feel the need to come here and talk about how all other religons are bullshit.
You give peaceful non-believers a bad name.

1) Did God create imperfection? Prove it.


in the original scripture of Genesis 1:1, God created the world in seven days. in the first five, God would look down on God's work and notice that It Was Good. On the Sixth Day, God looked on the creation, Adam, but did not comment that It Was Good. As frequently happens, this passage has been 'reinterpreted'. Thus God did create imperfection.

Also note that a particularly poignant anti-God argument is the stunning change from Old Testament to New Testament. God apparently has a complete personality about-face. This, I have found, is not apparent to most christians because they have never read the *real* Old Testament, the Torah, but severely modified version, e.g. King James. Why would God go from vengeful, Thou Shalt Not Sin Lest I Go Sodom And Gomorrah On Your Ass, to I Love Everyone And I Will Forgive Everything If You just Pay Your Dues To The Church? This is because God is a construct, at least a construct currently. Despite any basis in fact (which I cannot prove/disprove as has been shown) organized religion in and of itself refutes God in the form it advocates.

Why do people feel the need to come here and justify their religion? If you're religious and you're happy good for you. All that justification is just bullshit though.

All justification is BS ;) And didn't I title this thread in such a way as to tell people like you to kindly refrain from posting?

My explanation is that God was literally a giant, floating superbeing in space and he DID show himself during the old testament but then maybe he died or flew away or something. It is entriely possible that God exists/existed in a completely physical sense, and didn't use any supernatural powers, just science we cannot understand.

the god who showed himself in the old testament doesnt pass very well for any kind of "god" to me. but in any case, if he cant be bothered to come back and update us on his desires, fuck him. we arent mind readers!


There is no chance that an intelligence actually started the physical universe, because an intelligence requires fixed parameters in which to store information and thought which only the physical universe can logically provide.
*shrug* i suppose you are right about that. i wouldnt know. but that part doesnt seem to bother religious people. i was giving THEM the benefit of the doubt.

Now now, lets not bunch all religions together. Buddhism says the belief in gods is a waste of time.

Thank you for your time,

Keith
oh does it?

then why do they have temples? why is there a buddhist hell? why does every asian buddhist beleive in some god or other?

buddhism doesnt have a central god figure but buddhist have gods.

Yes, Ockham's Razor is very useful. I never said it wasn't ;)

Agreed so far.

My argument is void against the implicit atheists, not the explicit atheists. I'll be sure to clarify who I am addressing in my opening statement next time.

Fair enough.

There is also no reason to assume he doesn't exist.

True, personally I simply adopt the default position of non-belief.

How would you expect to find evidence that God doesn't exist if you can't even prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the world (and a midget) out of a giant meat ball?

An excellent comeback. Maybe I should have been clearer though, I personally don't think it can be proved either way.

I'm not trying to prove that God exists, I am merely trying to prove that you are just as capable of proving that God doesn't exist as I am that God does exist (which is not capable at all).

I agree that I can't prove it.

Ockham's Razor means that if two theories provide equally satisfactory explanations, you should use the one that requires less assumptions. However, neither Atheism nor Theism have satisfactory explanations, since no solid evidence is available to support either argument

I'm not sure if I agree on the definition of a 'satisfactory explanation'. I would define it as an explanation which can't be disproved to a reasonable degree which would make both the atheistic and the theistic explanations 'satisfactory'. I guess it all depends on viewpoint.

I am not talking about remaining undecided, I am talking about remaining open to the possibility. Invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning were discovered, but science had already decided that they don't exist, then they would have to lie like hell about it. But if they were to remain open to the possibility, they would simply say "Holy shit! Invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning!" and then start researching them.

Personally I eagerly await the discovery of our invisible green overlords.:)

oh does it?

then why do they have temples? why is there a buddhist hell? why does every asian buddhist beleive in some god or other?

buddhism doesnt have a central god figure but buddhist have gods.

I thought that Buddhists beleived in gods but think that they wandered off ages ago so they're pretty much irrrlevant.

I also thought that Buddhists don't have a hell as such unless you're refering to their belief that life is suffering.

Incidently how do you spell belief? It looks kindof wrong like that.

the god who showed himself in the old testament doesnt pass very well for any kind of "god" to me. but in any case, if he cant be bothered to come back and update us on his desires, fuck him. we arent mind readers!


Like I said, maybe he died, or flew away. Or maybe he's testing us and he will come back and attack everyone who failed to placate him.

What makes you think there is a god? Forget what other people have to say.
Let's start there.

An excellent comeback. Maybe I should have been clearer though, I personally don't think it can be proved either way.

Then it seems we have much in common, and are merely looking at the debate from different angles :)

Personally I eagerly await the discovery of our invisible green overlords.:)

Who doesn't?

invisible green flying monkeys who fart lightning

Please, do not scoff at my religion or misinterpret it. They are not invisible and green at the same time. They are able to selectively reflect light, and so can be invisible and green, albeit not a the same time. Furthermore, they do not fart lightning. The fact that the origin of the lightning is inside their anus does not mean that they fart it. It can be more closely tied with the human process of defecation, although it is much more complex, involving super-charged ions in the upper anus. However, I will not get into such parts of my religion.

By definition, there can never be a positive proof that any type of god does not exist. The better question which the author originally asked was whether belief in the existence of God(s) was important.

in the original scripture of Genesis 1:1, God created the world in seven days. in the first five, God would look down on God's work and notice that It Was Good. On the Sixth Day, God looked on the creation, Adam, but did not comment that It Was Good. As frequently happens, this passage has been 'reinterpreted'. Thus God did create imperfection.


I just want to point out:

Genesis 1:31
And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

God did not say anything was "very good" until after man's creation.

Then it seems we have much in common, and are merely looking at the debate from different angles :)

Agreed.

Why do you feel the need to come here and talk about how all other religons are bullshit.
You give peaceful non-believers a bad name.

Duh? Where did I say all other religions are bullshit? I said justification is bullshit. You need an elementary lesson in comprehension.

oh does it?

then why do they have temples? why is there a buddhist hell? why does every asian buddhist beleive in some god or other?

buddhism doesnt have a central god figure but buddhist have gods.
Well, I am a new buddhist, but I have learned a bit. I cannot quote these things exactly so exscuse me if I am incorrect. Buddha taught that everything is impermanant, buddha said that the belief in Gods is a waste of time, buddha made no claim to be a God but simply hes there to point the way to the cessation of suffering. I believe though now that I am thinking more about it, that he didnt deny the existance of deitys, so yes if you dont mean powerful creator beings that play with us, in a sense it dose. I am not a buddhist that believes in them, and there are plenty like me at this forum: www.newbuddhist.com

You also have to take into factor that just because one sect says something that seems dogmatic, that dosent mean all of them do. Some buddhists do worship buddha as a god, some do not. Some christians believe in purgatory, some do not. The thing all sects have in common is the four noble truths, and the eightfold path.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/buddhism/buddhism2.html (four noble truths just scroll down)
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/buddhism/buddhism3.html (eightfold path)

But now I am going way off topic, I am sorry to those that actually wanted to stay on subject, I got carried away.

You are thinking in the western God kind of view, what about islam? Judaism? Hindu?

I cannot claim sufficient knowledge of Hinduism.

As for Judaism and Islam, the attributes I listed are ascribed to God in those religions, too.

I thought that Buddhists beleived in gods but think that they wandered off ages ago so they're pretty much irrrlevant.

I also thought that Buddhists don't have a hell as such unless you're refering to their belief that life is suffering.

Incidently how do you spell belief? It looks kindof wrong like that.

L is always followed by I not E

buddhism is an incredibly varied religion. it has adapted itself to each culture is has been introduced to. most gods are local rather than common to all buddhists

try this link to a thai temple that has a garden depicting buddhist hell
http://www.thaiworldview.com/wat/wat6.htm

and this link to buddhist gods.

http://www.circle-of-light.com/Mantras/GnG1.html

Please, do not scoff at my religion or misinterpret it. They are not invisible and green at the same time. They are able to selectively reflect light, and so can be invisible and green, albeit not a the same time. Furthermore, they do not fart lightning. The fact that the origin of the lightning is inside their anus does not mean that they fart it. It can be more closely tied with the human process of defecation, although it is much more complex, involving super-charged ions in the upper anus. However, I will not get into such parts of my religion.

By definition, there can never be a positive proof that any type of god does not exist. The better question which the author originally asked was whether belief in the existence of God(s) was important.

Ha! Her invisibleness the Invisible Pink Unicorn can be pink and invisible at the same time! This is clearly impossible which proves that she must be omnipotent.

I cannot claim sufficient knowledge of Hinduism.

As for Judaism and Islam, the attributes I listed are ascribed to God in those religions, too.
:) Ok, I wasnt wanting you to proof yourself or anything, I was just curious as to whether or not you had more questions for the other religions.

L is always followed by I not E

buddhism is an incredibly varied religion. it has adapted itself to each culture is has been introduced to. most gods are local rather than common to all buddhists

try this link to a thai temple that has a garden depicting buddhist hell
http://www.thaiworldview.com/wat/wat6.htm

and this link to buddhist gods.

http://www.circle-of-light.com/Mantras/GnG1.html

Interesting, thank you.

Well, I am a new buddhist, but I have learned a bit. I cannot quote these things exactly so exscuse me if I am incorrect. Buddha taught that everything is impermanant, buddha said that the belief in Gods is a waste of time, buddha made no claim to be a God but simply hes there to point the way to the cessation of suffering. I believe though now that I am thinking more about it, that he didnt deny the existance of deitys, so yes if you dont mean powerful creator beings that play with us, in a sense it dose. I am not a buddhist that believes in them, and there are plenty like me at this forum: www.newbuddhist.com

You also have to take into factor that just because one sect says something that seems dogmatic, that dosent mean all of them do. Some buddhists do worship buddha as a god, some do not. Some christians believe in purgatory, some do not. The thing all sects have in common is the four noble truths, and the eightfold path.

http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/buddhism/buddhism2.html (four noble truths just scroll down)
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/buddhism/buddhism3.html (eightfold path)

But now I am going way off topic, I am sorry to those that actually wanted to stay on subject, I got carried away.
which is why i have a problem with anyone who claims that buddhism is some kind of atheist religion. sure you dont HAVE to believe in gods. those who evangelize in the united states are very careful to leave out the gods that are believed in in their homelands. they know that americans are not going to sign up to believe in asian gods.

but you may want to ask yourself just WHO is running "karma" and "reincarnation". what is making sure that you get your just rewards in your next life? and just what decides what is worthy of a "demotion" and what is worthy of a "promotion"?

i havent studied this but it sure seem like there must be some kind of intelligence behind the rewards and punishments of the buddhist system of karma.

which is why i have a problem with anyone who claims that buddhism is some kind of atheist religion. sure you dont HAVE to believe in gods. those who evangelize in the united states are very careful to leave out the gods that are believed in in their homelands. they know that americans are not going to sign up to believe in asian gods.

but you may want to ask yourself just WHO is running "karma" and "reincarnation". what is making sure that you get your just rewards in your next life? and just what decides what is worthy of a "demotion" and what is worthy of a "promotion"?

i havent studied this but it sure seem like there must be some kind of intelligence behind the rewards and punishments of the buddhist system of karma.
Yes, I am trying to take everything I learn with a grain of salt, and currently the whole karma thing seems a little odd.

Interesting, thank you.

Also you might find this wheel interesting, it depicts the different places you can go, including their hell. http://www.chezpaul.org.uk/buddhism/images/circle3.jpg

http://xtronics.com/reference/ockham.htmBak yn th 14th sentury, speeling waas farely opshunel. Wye shud th purson (& playse) ov Ockham, hav bean formalized yn th saem wae az th consept baring thatt naim?

(How this squares with the principle itself is beyond me, though...)

[Darnit, meant to make an on topic comment... Which, for the sake of brevity, shall be the OP's "Do you think knowing for sure whether God exists is important, or not?".

No, I don't think it's important. I do however think that it's important that if people believe, they do so without prejudice to observed reality (i.e. without misbelieving the facts). And I'm all in favour of everyone ('believer-in-X' or otherwise) being as well educated as possible. This includes me, so pease teach me something interesting.]

It is impossible to prove the existance of God. I don't think anybody yet has mentioned Pascals Wager. He uses the decision theory (that if you are presented with decision A or decision B and A will always prove more benificial it is only rational to choose A) and accepts the impossibility of conclusively proving God and instead presents a bet: There is a 50-50 chance that either God exists, or does not.


//////////////////You Believe in God / You Do not Believe in God

God Exists////////Infinite Reward / Inifinite Punishment

No God///////////////Finite utiles / Finite Utiles

Here, for the theist: 1/2 * Positive infinity + 1/2 * Something finite = Infinity.

For the atheist: 1/2 * Negative infinaty + 1/2 * Something finite = Negative infinity.

Hence, it is rational to believe in God.

The way I see it as an agnostic is.

The perfect one does not exist tangibly but only in the absolute certainty of the mind governed by absolute thought. For the realm of the real is not governed by such thought, but dictated by subjective and evolutionary definition, which came to fruition through the perception of our imperfect senses. The perfect one combined with another perfect one will equal an absolute two. However, the perfect nominal value exists only metaphorically. The practical use of mathmatics is objective only through subjective defining. For instance, one apple with another apple does not equal absolutely two apples for there is no "perfect" apple. Another example is that two parallel lines will never meet, however in the real world no line is perfectly straight and will eventually intercept the other. For nothing is tangibly absolute. In our minds though mathematics is perfectly logical, rational, and absolute. Believing this, and assuming god is absolute, god can only exist in the sanctaties of our minds in some manner and form because if mathematics, the greatest expression of logic, cannot absolutely exist in physical form than neither can god.

I just developed it so I'm still working out the quirks.

It is impossible to prove the existance of God. I don't think anybody yet has mentioned Pascals Wager. He uses the decision theory (that if you are presented with decision A or decision B and A will always prove more benificial it is only rational to choose A) and accepts the impossibility of conclusively proving God and instead presents a bet: There is a 50-50 chance that either God exists, or does not.


//////////////////You Believe in God / You Do not Believe in God

God Exists////////Infinite Reward / Inifinite Punishment

No God///////////////Finite utiles / Finite Utiles

Here, for the theist: 1/2 * Positive infinity + 1/2 * Something finite = Infinity.

For the atheist: 1/2 * Negative infinaty + 1/2 * Something finite = Negative infinity.

Hence, it is rational to believe in God.

I know there are more elegant ways to prove thats crap but my favourite is: if pascals wager is true then god's a dick.

I know there are more elegant ways to prove thats crap but my favourite is: if pascals wager is true then god's a dick.
...and we're all selfish little bastards

How may heavens are there?

People tell me animals don't have souls so they don't go to heaven. But heaven without animals would be hell to me.

People tell me that homosexuals do not go to heaven. But I have friends who are homosexual and heaven without all of my friends would be hell to me.

It is impossible to prove the existance of God. I don't think anybody yet has mentioned Pascals Wager. He uses the decision theory (that if you are presented with decision A or decision B and A will always prove more benificial it is only rational to choose A) and accepts the impossibility of conclusively proving God and instead presents a bet: There is a 50-50 chance that either God exists, or does not.


//////////////////You Believe in God / You Do not Believe in God

God Exists////////Infinite Reward / Inifinite Punishment

No God///////////////Finite utiles / Finite Utiles

Here, for the theist: 1/2 * Positive infinity + 1/2 * Something finite = Infinity.

For the atheist: 1/2 * Negative infinaty + 1/2 * Something finite = Negative infinity.

Hence, it is rational to believe in God.
is a generic belief in god enough to get you the big reward? i dont know of a religion that thinks so.

can you believe in all the possible god and all the existing belief sets about those gods all at the same time?

what if "god" is christian but, DAMMIT, you missed out on the mormon part, or DAMMIT, its not god its allah and you still dont get the big reward. or DAMMIT, its any christian belief but infant baptism is disallowed and you were baptised as a baby.

so many gods, so little willingness to believe.

The most common argument for atheism I have seen:

1. God is not necessary (Ockhams Razor)
2. There is no evidence for God.



Hey....wait a minute.....that sounds...familiar.

How may heavens are there?

People tell me animals don't have souls so they don't go to heaven. But heaven without animals would be hell to me.

People tell me that homosexuals do not go to heaven. But I have friends who are homosexual and heaven without all of my friends would be hell to me.

I think in this case a very excellent example comes from the Gaming world. Remember Afterlife? When you could make Sim Heaven and Hell? Those scripters must have spent a helluva long time trying to figure out how to make heaven and hell. In the end, if I remember, every Sim got their own privately tailored Afterlife in accordance with their beliefs/wants.

This is also pointed out in Calvin and Hobbes when Calvin points out that he would be simultaneously unhappy and happy with tigers in heaven, due to their proclivity to attack small children. He comments that maybe tigers in heaven don't eat people... which makes Hobbes unhappy.

All great philosophy is to be found in Calvin and Hobbes. All great information is to be found in Wikipedia (I just thought I'd continue to swing for the Wiki here...)

[...]I don't think anybody yet has mentioned Pascals Wager.[...]
Hence, it is rational to believe in God.

No-one has mentioned it in this thread [when I started writing this post, that is!], but search around and you'll see the standard rebuttals, among which are:

Which God? Be a misbeliever and and you might be worse off than a nonbeliever.
Following a God that does not exist easily deprives you of something. (e.g. healthy walks in the countryside rather than being stuck in a mouldy old chapel, or not experiencing the company of a mutually loving life-partner because you believe you'd be sinful in a same-sex relationship, or by ending your life in a firey explosion that you believed would punish the disbelievers and transport your soul to paradise).
Can you choose to believe, as an act of ring-fencing your hypothetical immortal soul, and still receive the same benefit as someone who is a natural believer without being coldly calculating? An omniscient deity would know, you know.


Unless the deity that exists (saying that one does, for this example) is essentially opposite to your "beneficial overseer" model, in most circumstances someone who does not get naturally drawn to a faith should be better off being 'secularly good' (and believers of other faiths "good in their own way) to be treated well by the one who ends up judging them. You may not get the most privalidged position in the upper levels of His Glory, but being opportunistic in your beliefs seems to me a surefire recipe to demotion. And you missed out on the harmless fun activities your adopted belief told you were 'not kosher'.

Also, I'm a protestant but my sister-in-law is catholic and so is my mother-in-law's partner. I think sin is wrong, but they seem to be allowed to sin as much as they like as long as they repent and say a few hail marys. I don't want to spend eternity with people who have sinned even if they have repented, so is there a different heaven for Catholics and Protestants?

If there is, is the Protestant heaven divided up even further, because I don't want to go to the mormon heaven because I think they are sinners, and the jehovah's witnesses are also sinners so I don't want to be in heaven with them either. There are probably a few other protestant groups that I wouldn't want to be in heaven with as well. Does St Peter ask which heaven you want to go to when you get to the gate or do I need to book in advance?

And, my heaven would have Natalie Portman in it, but she is jewish. Is that alright? Will she be allowed in the Protestant (no mormons or jehovahs) Heaven or will I have to go to the jewish heaven? Wait, do jews go to heaven?

I think Angelina Jolie is a buddhist. Does that mean I'm out of luck altogether on that one?

And, my heaven would have Natalie Portman in it, but she is jewish. Is that alright? Will she be allowed in the Protestant (no mormons or jehovahs) Heaven or will I have to go to the jewish heaven? Wait, do jews go to heaven?


a fundmentalist friend once told me we jews automatically go to heaven as The Chosen People. I choose to believe this. Maybe this is because Heaven needs a helluva lot of accountants and bankers for all the organization that it is evidently requiring...!

But jews worship a different god from the christians so they can't possibly be in the same heaven as christians.

Also, I'm a protestant but my sister-in-law is catholic and so is my mother-in-law's partner. I think sin is wrong, but they seem to be allowed to sin as much as they like as long as they repent and say a few hail marys. I don't want to spend eternity with people who have sinned even if they have repented, so is there a different heaven for Catholics and Protestants?

If there is, is the Protestant heaven divided up even further, because I don't want to go to the mormon heaven because I think they are sinners, and the jehovah's witnesses are also sinners so I don't want to be in heaven with them either. There are probably a few other protestant groups that I wouldn't want to be in heaven with as well. Does St Peter ask which heaven you want to go to when you get to the gate or do I need to book in advance?

And, my heaven would have Natalie Portman in it, but she is jewish. Is that alright? Will she be allowed in the Protestant (no mormons or jehovahs) Heaven or will I have to go to the jewish heaven? Wait, do jews go to heaven?

I think Angelina Jolie is a buddhist. Does that mean I'm out of luck altogether on that one?
yikes you got trouble there

i recommend that you believe in a heaven of neighborhoods where all the baptists live together, all the buddhists live together (you can tell them they are waiting a bit before reincarnation), all the jews live together, etc.

then you can have common areas for those who want to visit with people from other "neighborhoods"

if heaven is what we believe it to be, this is your only real chance at happiness in the afterlife.

hmmmm

MY argument for why god doesnt exist goes "all religions are obvious bullshit. any god that might exist cant be bothered to show himself or to let us know what he wants, if anything. even if god DOES exist it is as if he doesnt so what does it matter if he exists or not?"

sure there is some incredibly remote chance that some intelligence started the universe. so what?

seconded

How may heavens are there?

People tell me animals don't have souls so they don't go to heaven. But heaven without animals would be hell to me.

People tell me that homosexuals do not go to heaven. But I have friends who are homosexual and heaven without all of my friends would be hell to me.

Certainly, if having animals and your friends in heaven with you makes you happy then a loving God will provide it for you.