The God Delusion

The same thing when your self-created faith in ‘god’ falters… what ever that might be.

As both ‘sides’ have pointed to the fact that we can neither prove or disprove the existance of god or that sience can adequetly explain creation of the universe and all that is in it - then there has to be a leap of faith at some point for either side of the arguement.

At least in that point both sides should share some common ground.

God’s existence does not depend upon our faith. Humanity has purpose in God, if God exists–at least in the Christian definition of God,–whether or not we choose to believe it. In addition, faith in the Christian God is not self-created; rather, it is a personal relationship that I continue to experience. Before you try to argue that point, keep in mind I said that it was my experience, not a universal one, and arguing with one’s experience is irrelevant. With science allowing the possibility of a God, and my faith being experienced in a relationship with a personal God, there is no reason for my faith to falter.

While science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, based upon current knowledge, we can make a logical choice as to which way the evidence points. As Patrick Glynn states, “As recently as twenty-five years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.” – Patrick Glynn, “The Making and Unmaking of an Atheist,” in God: The Evidence. Pages 53 and 55.

This is not to say that we should stop all materialistic investigation, as I have said previously, science is a material discipline, and therefore should be carried out with methodological materialism, regardless of one’s personal philosophy. It does say, however, that in making an argument for God it can be logical to choose the most compelling answer with currently known evidence. There is indeed a leap of faith either way, but how big of a leap on either side is the question that this argument intends to answer.

I can find common ground with experienced debaters who communicate logically, with reason, and accept evidence that can alter their worldview so long as it is true evidence. I can find common ground with people who search for the True.

I am not questioning your experience - the same can be said for schizophrenics for the experiences that they endure. But ultimately, it comes down to your perception of the experience - and you have rightly shared your perception of your god experience as a personal one, as experience is subjective.

You say god can exist wheter or not we choose to believe it or not. But if humanity was not aware of gods existance, then how can humanity have a purpose in God? God will still exist - but our perception of god will be interpreted in other ways.

edit: didnt see your edit and I am not sure if you saw mine? Sorry. Will have to reply later… otherwise I will not get anything done today :tongue: Great conversation!

Odd, I use the same example and reasoning against postmodern philosophy. I might want to stress that I do not feel that an experience is enough to warrant a belief in God–save for a revelatory experience. My belief in God stems from a union of verifiable, suggestive, scientific evidence as well as the historical validity of the Bible and, additionally, my own personal experience. I do not feel that experience alone is always enough to allow for worldview contrary to verifiable evidence.

Humanity will have purpose in God if God dictates it as such. Even if a God created us but left us to ourselves, we would still have no higher purpose. However, humanity can be unaware of said purpose without the reality of that purpose being forsaken. Our acknowledgement of something does not necessitate its truthfulness. If I am interpreting you right, I am basically restating your finishing statement in different words, and if so, I agree with you.

I saw yours. Agreed! Conversations like these do indeed prove that while views can differ greatly, civil philosophical discussions can be held. I look forward to your future replies.

I don’t feel any God is ‘necessary’ (apply Ockham’s razor one step further). But I don’t think Ockham’s razor is a very strong argument (rather a ‘guideline’ for building models or postulating theories). Multiple gods may not be necessary but can still exist. I admit that for the argument of the existence of any god, this is of no relevance. It is relevant when considering the validity of any one specific religion, but I understand this is not the point you want to argue here (see directly below).

Fair enough.

You are right; I did not demonstrate the validity of my statement and should not have claimed to have done so. I should have referred to the Duhem-Quine-These. Basically: “It is always possible to reject an apparently falsifying observation by claiming that only one of its [the theory’s] underlying assumptions is false; since there are an indeterminate number of such assumptions, any observation can potentially be made compatible with any theory.”
Further, I am totally aware I was arguing the same point as you were (which is why I emitted a referral to the Duhem-Quine-These in the first place). I simply wanted to stress that the fact that any piece of empirical evidence can be explained by many (whether infinitely many is actually beside the point) different theories does not make all these possible theories equally likely to be truth (you want me to provide evidence for this?). The fact that an argument does not commit a non sequitur, does not automatically make that statement valuable in any respect.

Fair enough (although I do not feel science points in the direction of a creator God)

For this we would first have to agree on a exact definition of ‘sensible’ and requirements to qualify as sensible.

First, the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause is not universally accepted and may simply be wrong. It could very well be right however, but still this does not lead any further than the conclusion that the universe is caused and it certainly does not imply this cause is ‘God’ (unless you would simply define this cause as God). I don’t see how assigning any quality to this cause (except the quality to cause something) can be justified or can help our understanding of the world (Ockham’s razor).

First, I never meant to suggest that God is anti-matter.
Second, if you are arguing that God transcends space and time, I don’t think that means much and I think there are many problems when assuming a God outside space-time with regard to how he could influence our universe. What does it mean to say “he’s above matter and can THUS influence it”. I don’t see how that follows or what meaning it has. Neither have I seen a convincing argument for the existence of such entity. Or, if you’re fond of Ockham’s razor, how postulating a God outside space-time does add to our knowledge.
And even if I assume there is such thing as a God creator outside of space-time, the step to attributing it with any qualities apart from pushing the ‘start’-button, let alone such qualities attributed to him by major and minor religions is formidable.

If your argument for ‘God’ implies nothing more than that the universe is or might be caused, we do not have a fundamental disagreement. If you attribute him with other qualities, I would like to know which ones and what justification you have for attributing them to him.

You have completely misunderstood my position. Perhaps you have done so wilfully? I believe a careful consideration of the post you are replying to here refutes the assumptions you have made. You have not read me carefully, and it seems you have also not used the principal of charity. Though I do not need your charity, the discussion might.

You also do not understand the consequences of Nietzsche’s philosophy, or indeed, anything he has written. You hilariously argue from his own philosophy that there is no reason for your religion (Christian) morals to be contemptible, and yet he is very explicit about this. I’m not going to chop him up piecemeal for your digestion, you seem quite happy that your understanding of him tastes good to you.

Yes! Life is pointless! Embrace it! Create a purpose in that, and laugh at your folly in doing so! Cast aside Descartes and his attempt at rationalizing the universe and embrace the inability of your mind to rule your life by pure concious thought. We embrace our minds as if they are our strongest organ, we must be prepared to laugh at this ridiculous pride.

I have nothing to fall on to if my purpose “falters”. I do not need the crutch. Just as a child eventually takes the training wheels off his bicycle so that he may know great speed, I have taken the training wheels off my mind so that I may know great purpose.

This “fall onto” argument is cowardly, if your mind is ruled by this; that is very contemptible. If I fall, I will learn from it, pick myself up and be better for it. Christianity fears and avoids displeasure, and thus robs itself.

Re-reading your post in light of this, I see that your semantical error of assuming purpose = fulfillment is what threw me off. It is true that the atheist can find fulfillment in creating one’s on destiny, but there is no deeper purpose to that.

First and foremost, it is impossible to get an understanding of the implications of his argument when all you quoted was a quote from Zarathustra. I had simply assumed your quotation captured the jest of your argument. If it does not, I see no reason for the posting of the selected quote. If it does, then all that you have argued is that a man who founded a religion viewed others as contemptible. Please elaborate on his argument, as I do not have the time nor the desire to bother myself with your argument besides what is posted here and checking the sources that you give. The fact is that the consequences of Nietzsche’s philosophy ultimately end in despair, and this is known. While one particular argument against the contemptible morals of a religion that is not Christianity may prove some point, it does not prove the contemptibility of Christian morals per se, nor does it prove a basis for that contempt in the first place, nor does it prove there is a deeper basis for fulfillment in the atheistic life. While the atheist may find fulfillment, ultimately, there is no objective reason to find it.

Forget logic! Who needs it in arguments anyways? Preach it brother! I might add that you are quite smart in this argument, as you seem to have deduced that discarding logic is the only way to defend your absurd position.

Then, if life becomes despicable, why not commit suicide? If there is no hope, and the bad clearly outweighs any good, why not end your own existence? While your own argument against this may suffice for yourself, it certainly will not for the person with depression. Additionally, you never answered my question as to why you should not remain consistently drugged. What reason do you have for abstaining from this besides arbitrary and subjective ideals? Why hold these arbitrary ideals if another thing brings greater fulfillment?

Ah… Ignorance of Christian belief surfaces once again. James 1:2-12, 2 Thessalonians 1:4-5, Hebrews 2:9-10, among many, many other passages promote suffering and displeasure. “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” - Hebrews 2:10. “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” James 1:2-4.

Christianity does not avoid or fear displeasure; Christians are told to embrace suffering so that God’s work may be complete in us through perseverance of the faith. You are entirely mistaken and ignorant of actual Christian belief.

I suggested Ockham’s razor to Zeus for a purpose I did not make quite clear. I was referencing that if the universe did, in fact, point towards a creator with science, then if the evidence could be explained by one God alone, based entirely on the empirical evidence rather than any mythology, it would be more logical to choose a singular God. However, if a mythology could accurately explain the universe and had other strengths to it–such as reliability of their holy scriptures and historical validity, among other things–then it would be perfectly logical indeed to choose that mythology over others with lesser strength–negating Ockham’s razor. But, you are indeed correct, this wasn’t my point.

Ah, the Duhem-Quine-These slipped my mind in my reply. This was not the intention of the argument that I was presenting to Bombax, my intention was to show (as in the neuroscience argument presented just before it) that some evidence can be interpreted in different ways fitting with the evidence entirely verifiable as true–that is, I was trying to prove that two people could come to an agreement about what the evidence showed, yet interpret the evidence in entirely different ways based upon pre-existing theories. However, your point still stands.

I most definitely agree that simply because an argument does not have a non sequitur does not make it right (Zeno’s logic if I remember correctly?). However, I was not claiming strength of my argument from this premise, I was simply stating that the argument should not be discounted.

This might be unfair of me, but can I ask you to provide evidence backing up that claim? I have spent a considerable amount of time showing scientific evidence that most would agree points toward a creator (I know that this does not necessarily prove that it does point towards a creator, and I am sure some would discount my request because of this statement, but keep in mind that–as I have stated earlier–interpretation of anything, even evidence, is subjective, and therefore a larger number of people agreeing with an interpretation gives that interpretation credence). I would actually like to see the evidence that points away from a creator if you can bring some up for me?

Well, since you had first stated that Yahweh was not sensible I had assumed that you would argue by your definition of sensible. My definition of sensible would imply that the Christian God is logical throughout the entire belief of Christianity (inner consistency), that its historical claims are verifiable or valid (reliability), and that it consistent with empirical evidence in the material world (outer consistency).

While that first premise has the possibility of be wrong, it can logically argue its antithesis–that something can begin to exist without a cause–into absurdity, which I can do if you feel the need for me to prove this. It is basic logic then, that if the universe had a beginning it had a cause, though, as you correctly state, this cause is not necessarily God. To prove that this cause is God, a refutation of any other model for the beginning of the universe must be made, which can be done. With our current knowledge, all of these theories are self-defeating or inadequate with little promise of proving adequate. Again, there is a wide variety of these theories, which would make arguing into the dark against all of these aggravating and useless. If you can raise one of these possible arguments, I will refute it, as promised.

Transcends is a dangerous word, full of many possible misinterpretations. My “above” probably misled you in my sentence too, my apologies. God existing in a dimension above ours (by above, I am simply referencing numerical dimensions: first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.) does not remove Him from our dimension. It is analogous to our being able to influence things in the first dimension without notice, though we are most certainly not in the first dimension.

However, we are not addressing the issue of whether or not a non-material (though that word is also dangerous) God can influence the material world simply by addressing the semantics of dimensions. There are a variety of theories, and naming them all could take much time as well. However, I again reference the antimatter of theoretical physics or the evidence that is nearly confirmative of the soul that I posted earlier as evidence that what is non-material can, in fact, influence the material, and this is empirically evident. I do not feel that science should therefore assume God, but I feel that science should investigate and hypothesize as to how these non-material entities, which are highly empirically verified, can influence matter, this would form a scientific hypothesis for how it would be possible for God to influence matter. If you are looking for a theological theory, I can give you mine if you’d like.

I have not addressed this yet, but is it entirely coincidence that Genesis has claimed a 6-day creation for millennia yet physicists have discovered that from the creation of the universe until the human (homo sapiens rather than erectus or anything) species emerged, a total of 6 days passed in cosmic time, judged by the space-time curvature and time dilation due to general relativity? (A note: this is approximately 15.75 billion years from our perception). This is an exceptional argument for the existence of the Christian God, in my opinion (and I can prove this mathematically too if you’d like, it’s a relatively new proof, which is why you probably haven’t heard of it, but an indisputable one nonetheless). Additionally, when the chances of our universe having such precise conditions for our existence (see my previous arguments) are so miniscule, science has no adequate explanation for the existence of our universe at all, and there are flaws in the evolutionary fossil record among other things wrong with evolutionary theory, isn’t the idea of a God more probable and/or convincing than the idea that all of these things happened by chance? Yes, science may one day explain away all these flaws, but claiming that, at this point in time, actually requires more faith than believing in a creator. I want to stress above all, though, that I do not believe science should ever stop investigating the material world. I will say again, I am a methodological materialist. Science should attempt to answer the entire universe in an entirely materialistic fashion, as this is all it can prove. Whether or not this is possible is the true question, but science should be carried on as if it is not only possible but also as if it was evident.

Putting aside the 6-day cosmic time creation described earlier, this is where the topic of revelation becomes necessary. It is indeed impossible to attribute qualities to a deity based upon empirical evidence of a creator alone, which is why one should investigate the claims made by world religions to find the truth value of them.

My argument for my belief in God and then God’s qualities is that the universe is or might be caused (this encompasses the fine-tuning of our universe and the improbabilities of irreducibly complex systems forming through alternate routes as well), that the non-material is empirically verifiable and influential in matter (this encompasses the fact that we have a “self,” or a soul, as is indicated by Genesis–God making man in His image; the soul/spirit is what separates us from all other beings and thus most Christians agree that the soul/spirit is what is meant by Him making us in His image–and both the soul and antimatter can influence matter, though we are not yet able to explain how, thus allowing for a non-material God to also influence matter), that the Bible contains nothing contrary to scientific thought, that the Bible is historically reliable, and that the claims made by Jesus establish Him as either Lord, a lunatic, or a liar, and the latter two can be ruled out (as well as the historical reliability and validity of these claims; and the fact that Jesus perfectly fulfilled over 400 prophecies, though the odds against the fulfilling of all of these prophecies is nearly prohibitive.)

I can argue for each of these. I can tell that my next reply is going to be nearly as long as my other two as you’re going to ask me to prove these. Please do not forget that I have asked you to argue that Yahweh is not sensible, and I have asked you to provide evidence that indicates that science is not pointing in the direction of God. Since I am going to fulfill my part, please fulfill yours.

Another looooongg post for a simple point.

Let me sum up AGAIN

We have stumbled upon the ability to create our own universe through lucid dreaming… riiight??? So why is sooo hard to believe God is creating our waking life with purpose and beauty and structure and emotions and faith.

WE HAVE A CREATOR BECAUSE YOU DIDNT CREATE ANYTHING AND AT MOST WILL BUILD A BIRDHOUSE OR CRUDE SCULPTURE.

You need to let go of your ego and see outside yourself. There HAS TO BE A CREATOR/DESIGNER/ARCHITECT.

There is NO other way. None. Zero. Sorry. To late. Buh Bye. Nuh-uh. Zip. Not even a remote chance of another idea. The precious big bang THEORY coincides with that of creation in the simple manor of “THATS HOW GOD DID IT”

Your theory answers no questions. What about purpose? What about why? Morals? Emotions? Conciousness? Really all going to be explained by a bunch of emptiness exploding… WAKE UP!

Seriously I’m getting tired of the idiocy.

WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

Is not very consistent with saying…

A little off topic:
Although I appreciate your point of view Wond3rland, I think the way you are presenting yourself in this topic is not very constructive to getting your point of view across, and by being so ‘preachy’ you are only doing more harm to your side of the arguement here. Relax!!!

Couldn’t have said it better myself…

you are sitting in front of a computer… building… talking instantly to people on the other side of the globe… listening to an ipod… with music on it played on instruments…

yeah

addressing posts in pages 1 through 4.
hi. I’m catching up with the topic. feel absolutely free to skip this if you want to.

just to set the record straight: there’s no such a thing as burden of proof: if your interlocutor challenges a statement you make and you can’t even remotely back it up, then it’s out of the table. it’s as simple as that. (any statement you make can be challenged, and the hell that it matters who threw the first rock).

but in fact, there are also no such things as proofs to begin with, not outside of maths at least; welcome to real life, all we have are evidences (and like Bombax nicely demonstrates throughout the beginning of the thread, these can all be charged with non sequitur given a little craft), and refutations (given an objective measure) (which almost always isn’t feasible, so don’t count on refutations much either). refutations aren’t proofs that a theory is wrong, because that would beg the point that the universe is logical to begin with, which is something we can only hope for.

~ * ~

@Freecube Viggo Olsen: uninspiring, a counter example would’ve turned the whole discussion zero-sum; prefer someone like Gabriel Marcel, whose case at least demonstrates that rationality is in the eyes of the beholder (cf. Benford’s law of controversy). also, the Bible contains tons against scientific thought, it’s not even self consistent or coherent (hell, it’s written in at least three languages, all extinct). none of this makes it any less logical (compared to other books) or any less worthy a book overall: so let’s not beg absurd points, shall we?

@Bombax pointing out logical fallacies: nice way to disregard someone’s arguments and the point they’re trying to make. done like you did it, not once has it worked outside of a high school logic & rhetoric club. prioritising form over content might get you far in maths, but it’s generally seen as a sign of bad faith in a, shall we call it, a humanities discussion; plus it tends to get you ignored by the interesting folk. also, you don’t expect, you know, real people to ever actually reason like you do, right?

@Tomothy “Richard Dorkins” made my day. but I wouldn’t say God Delusion poorly written; it’s a brilliant book for people accostumed to such stuff as television and, you know, not thinking. I’m actually sad I didn’t get to ask “Did you apply any of this logic to his book?” first.

@EllyEve to back up your argument a bit further, it’s worth reminding everyone that the scientific consensus isn’t a proof of anything, and serve as no guarantee that apples will never fall up (rather depending on them not falling up in order to remain consensus). attempts to sweep this fact under the rug and keep the scientific consensus in spite of compelling evidence that it’s wrong have come to be known as dark energy.

@underscore worse than praising Dawkins blindly, in that passage Bombax was begging the point that a little inconsistency is okay if the overall discourse is coherent and useful. that’s a nowhere defined “a little”, n.b., which turns this whole thread into a very silly aesthetic dispute over which theory is the most pleasing.

@EllyEve Wond3rland isn’t fact-oriented, so picking up contradictions kind of doesn’t really trap him for too long. also, the tree — life in general — does not “design” itself, because then it would have a social role regardless of any society, which would make it inherently social, begging the point of a higher order anthropomorphic rationality “to all this”. :slight_smile:

@Abren thanks for clearing that up to all of us, bud.

@Wond3rland first off, Tomothy is one of our most devout theists, so set the record straight. second, hey I’m also very wise and tend to think of my peers as a bunch of alienated sheep: —where do I apply for elder’s wisdom credentials? :slight_smile:

@Bombax “knows logic” doesn’t imply “can’t get laid”; “speaks like a logician when in defensive”, however… :slight_smile: did you stop to realise how this thread began? freecube loses style points along with you, but hey, the whole thing sprung up from pure silly!

also, exposing Wond3rland’s “illogical state” isn’t a blow to anyone, in particular not to him, he’s not aiming at logic to begin with. read his posts like metaphor, literature, or even like revelation. learn to respect those genres. outcasting it as illogical will move no stone in this discussion. also, weren’t you the one excusing the inconsistencies in Dawkins’s book in the name of overall usefulness and whatnot?

@Danielns13 you’re the brightest 13 year old to set foot in this forum in quite a while, thank you for that post. I feel less mature than you right now. :slight_smile: it would’ve been nice to have you in the forum back in the golden days, at the cloud.

@Bombax science cannot per definition provide explanations, period. nowadays, the most optimistic view is that science can sort out useless theories, but provided we hit the theoretical jackpot and stumble upon the correct theory of everything, science provides us with no way of verifying it’s right. we’d spend the rest of our lives having to trust it through — wait for it — faith. also, for the love of God, drop that Schopenhauer manual and speak like a human being! :slight_smile: you’ll have more fun. so will we. you don’t think anyone’s going to change their minds over an internet thread anyway, do you? and yes, I’m quite fond of ad hominem myself: it proves I’m inconsistent, it doesn’t prove I’m wrong.

@Scarface I’m indifferent to God’s existence, I very much rather he doesn’t exist and life ends with death, and still I think Dawkins’s book sucks. (and hey, don’t take me wrong, I quote from it when it pleases me; I just think it’s poorly written and it’s not my, you know, bible).

@Freecube what if I argue that I’m an atheist by preference (as opposed to faith)?

i’d be willing to bet that is the reason 90 % of us continue to post in this thread lol… so yes

If they saw the truth they would… must I repeat again.

There is NO way in ANY possible rational explanation that the ENTIRE cosmos including emotions, consciousness, and morals are a bi product of “!NOTHING!” exploding 500 billion years ago. This theory however because possible, and highly probable, once intelligence is placed behind it as the initiator or grand architect.

“The Big Bang is correct, God pulled the trigger”

This is NOT debatable. I repeat… NOT debatable. There is no room for doubt or question. OF COURSE there is a creator. Now if you want to call “God” or Allah or Intelligence doesn’t matter I don’t imagine the entity being picky.

BUT THERE IS A DESIGNER. A PAINTER. A DIRECTOR OR PLAYWRIGHT if you will…

NO OTHER EXPlANATION

PLEASE BRING ONE TO THE TABLE. NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING TO CREATE ANOTHER PLATFORM OR ARGUMENT.

Every opposer to the idea of God on this thread has done nothing to create an account or testimony to another idea. All they said was it was on believers to prove it. So we did. And if it is not intelligent design, what do you propose. Do you have ANY ideas?

If anyone even thinks of the idea of saying the big bang, don’t. Sit still and rest your weary fingers from the hard work of typing that out. There is NO way any other possibilities exist. Not even a remote chance of a possible maybe kinda sorta argument exist.

He who raises his voice has run out of arguments.

No. He who types in caps is tired of repeating.

Besides, run out of arguments? The other side never had any. And it just goes to show, i asked for another explanation and what do you do? Comment something I said, nothing more. That is all the opposing side has done the entire argument. Quote and say wrong. Where’s your evidence, not even evidence. I just want to hear what you are trying to prove. You don’t even have an argument. There is no argument, because there is no other way. God can be interpreted differently, but still exists.

In short, it appears as if you have totally ignored everybody’s posts except your own. We have clearly stated the basis for this discussion on the previous pages.

Disproving arguments are arguments in themselves.

You claim God, therefore you must provide evidence for God. The opposing part’s job is to attempt to disprove your evidence for God, which has also happened, in at least some degree, in the previous pages. We (meaning mostly me and FreeCube) have vigorously discussed rules of argument which we have finally agreed on. You have also demonstrated countless times that you do not argue according to even the simplest rules of reason. So, why should we even bother to listen to you?

Evidence for what?

To be fair, neither side has arguments, on principle. Atheists will go “I reject your arguments on the grounds that they’re not falsifiable” whereas theists will go “I reject your platonism and demand a piece of evidence as to why the universe must be strictly materialistic and logical”, and so long as there is no scientific argument coming from theists and no begging the question coming from atheists, neither side will be able to prove their point or to destroy the other’s. What? anyone here really thought that in a philosophical topic on a lucid dreaming board someone in their early 20s would finally come up with the argument to put an end to this milenar debate?

Also, guys, if word capitalisation is fair game an argument in this topic, then I’m seriously reconsidering my catching up with it. This applies to both those who capitalise and those who poke fun at it while ignoring the rest of the message.

(What I like the most about the expression “higher intelligence” is how amusingly ignorant it is to the fact that humans are only self-styled intelligence anyway).

this topic is now locked. it has run it’s course and is running around in circles.