Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[BradCube]

There isn't one, as far as we know. That's kind of the wrong way of thinking - that the universe is expanding into something. It isn't.

And if it was, than the space it was expanding into would be regarded as part of the universe anyway

 

[Kwayera]

But the reason we don't believe in fairies or Santa is precisely because we have reasons not to believe in them. We see no evidence for these entities where we would expect to find evidence if they existed. I honestly don't even understand how God is placed in the same category for dismissal as fairies, unicorns etc. It's as if you mean to say that God's non-existence is as inconsequential as that of a fairies non-existence.

Read what you said again, because you said exactly what I mean.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

But the reason we don't believe in fairies or Santa is precisely because we have reasons not to believe in them. We see no evidence for these entities where we would expect to find evidence if they existed. I honestly don't even understand how God is placed in the same category for dismissal as fairies, unicorns etc. It's as if you mean to say that God's non-existence is as inconsequential as that of a fairies non-existence.

Could not have put it any better myself. They are precisely as inconsequential as each other. Santa/fairies/God are one and the same -they all give false hope to people. If it makes you feel better, than by all means believe.

 

[BradCube]

Read what you said again, because you said exactly what I mean.

Ha ha,

Well I suppose the difference between you and I Kwayera, is that I see evidence for the existence of God, where as you find none. That, and I regard the existence of God as a crucial issue regarding the meaning of life and not a trivial point of discussion - I certainly do not place the issue of Gods existence alongside the importance level regarding the existence of fairies

 

[Kwayera]

Ha ha,

Well I suppose the difference between you and I Kwayera, is that I see evidence for the existence of God, where as you find none. That, and I regard the existence of God as a crucial issue regarding the meaning of life and not a trivial point of discussion - I certainly do not place the issue of Gods existence alongside the importance level regarding the existence of fairies

Well that's because you believe. I'm sure the kooks that believe in fairies see plenty of evidence for their existence as well, and place very high importance of the issue of their existence.

God is no different from fairies in the cornucopia of supernatural belief.

 

[Tully B.]

Ha ha,

Well I suppose the difference between you and I Kwayera, is that I see evidence for the existence of God, where as you find none. That, and I regard the existence of God as a crucial issue regarding the meaning of life and not a trivial point of discussion - I certainly do not place the issue of Gods existence alongside the importance level regarding the existence of fairies

I would find the possible existence of fairies to be megaimportant. And Santa Clause. How in hell's name does he get around to every house on Christmas eve?!

The meaning of life is overrated, and the origin of life even moreso. We are here, why ask why? But fairies... they aren't omniscient, invisible beings who control everything. They're just midgets with wings who can do magic, which I find pretty darn cool. If they are real, then we would be able to prove it by catching them. Or at least seeing them. Evidence of God's existence, however, will always be incredibly ambigious. Nothing can prove that Jesus' miracles were acts of God rather than fairy-magic, and it is impossible to prove the notion of heaven and hell. I'd rather spend my time hunting fairies and leprechauns thankyouverymuch.

That said, I do spend an awefull lot of time talking about religion, and very little time talking about fairies...

 

[moll.]

"Believability" as you so called it is measurable... There is a different between beliving in the invisible chair and solid "i can see brown" chair.

But you are right in saying that belief is not by choice, but predestined by God. In the same way, your free will guarrentees the right of choice in salvation or eternal condemenation... but according to God's plans.

The deciding factor for a person to belive in a certain religion, is from a personal perspectivie, the doctrine and evidence that is presents, and in the Christian case, the Bible. In our current society, especially for those which no concept of God and of the supernatural believing that all can be explained by science, (by no means is this my expression of doubt in science), it is especially difficult to belive.

And again this thread finds a way of coming back to the old free-will vs predestination argument. Kudos to you all.
By the way Luke, you might want to stop contradticting yourself so many times. Or at least do it spread over multiple posts, rather than in two consecutive paragraphs.

And please tell me that Tatecress14 is troll!

Wanna hope for your sake he is, otherwise you might have to spend all of eternity with us infernally annoying atheists.
Oh Noes!

 

[moll.]

Ha ha,

Well I suppose the difference between you and I Kwayera, is that I see evidence for the existence of God, where as you find none. That, and I regard the existence of God as a crucial issue regarding the meaning of life and not a trivial point of discussion - I certainly do not place the issue of Gods existence alongside the importance level regarding the existence of fairies

I would argue instead that the existance of God is a trivial issue, but that the belief in God is of great importance to the meaning of life

 

[BradCube]

Well that's because you believe.

Even if this were true (which I don't think it is), you're simply appealing to the genetic fallacy. That is, your trying to invalidate my position by showing how I came to hold the belief that I do (belief in this sense being my position on the evidence for the existence of God). This is just not relevant to whether there is evidence for the existence of God though.

I'm sure the kooks that believe in fairies see plenty of evidence for their existence as well, and place very high importance of the issue of their existence.

Well have them share it. If their evidence for the existence of fairies is better or more plausible than my evidence for the non-existence of fairies (that is, lack of evidence where there should be some), then I will believe too.

God is no different from fairies in the cornucopia of supernatural belief.

Sure, in the sense that both entities exist on a supernatural level. However, pretty much everything apart from that is different - including, I would argue, the implications of there existence upon our lives.

 

[Kwayera]

Even if this were true (which I don't think it is), you're simply appealing to the genetic fallacy. That is, your trying to invalidate my position by showing how I came to hold the belief that I do (belief in this sense being my position on the evidence for the existence of God). This is just not relevant to whether there is evidence for the existence of God though.

Not really. You're imparting extra importance on your belief in the existence of God because you believe in God. Obviously the non-existence of fairies is insignificant to you because you don't believe in them.

We don't believe in God. Thus its "non-existence" is just as unimportant to us as the non-existence of fairies, because unless you feel like detailing your "evidence", there's just as much evidence for either of them.

Well have them share it. If their evidence for the existence of fairies is better or more plausible than my evidence for the non-existence of fairies (that is, lack of evidence where there should be some), then I will believe too.

Same goes for your evidence for the existence of God. Have at it.

Sure, in the sense that both entities exist on a supernatural level. However, pretty much everything apart from that is different - including, I would argue, the implications of there existence upon our lives.

Why? If fairies existed, and by extension their magic etc, everything we knew about physics and biology and science in general would be turned on its head. How is that different from a hypothetical revelation in the existence of God?

 

[BradCube]

I would argue instead that the existance of God is a trivial issue, but that the belief in God is of great importance to the meaning of life

I would again be the opposite of this. If Gods non-existence is true, than surely any belief in God is trivial given that he doesn't exist. In this case, the only thing that is benefited by the belief in Gods existence is the illusion of a meaningful life - but what good is that if God doesn't exist?

 

[moll.]

I would again be the opposite of this. If Gods non-existence is true, than surely any belief in God is trivial given that he doesn't exist. In this case, the only thing that is benefited by the belief in Gods existence is the illusion of a meaningful life - but what good is that if God doesn't exist?

But God will never be proven true or untrue, no matter how hard we try. So debating his existance is a trivial argument as it can come to no conclusion.
However, debating the belief in God and the associated topics is a vastly different concept and has a massive bearing upon the modern world due to the influence of these beliefs, be they unfounded or not.

 

[BradCube]

Not really. You're imparting extra importance on your belief in the existence of God because you believe in God. Obviously the non-existence of fairies is insignificant to you because you don't believe in them.

Again, this is not what I am doing, you're using the genetic fallacy to invalidate my position.

I say: "The existence of God is not a trivial issue"

You say: "Oh you only say that because you believe God exists"

But your claim is irrelevant since my claim stands independent of whether I believe God exists or not. My claims addresses the implications for the truth of Gods existence and doesn't touch on whether belief in such a God is necessary.

Same goes for your evidence for the existence of God. Have at it.

I have already detailed my points in earlier days on this thread. We can go through some of them again if you like? I have a feeling that much of it will prove fruitless as you have already said:

...nothing you or anyone can do could, for example, change my non-belief in a god. You couldn't. I couldn't. I have absolute conviction that there is no god, just as I have absolute conviction that I'm sitting in my bed in my PJs replying to you; belief really doesn't come into it. It simply is, and no amount of rhetoric or "evidence" from you or any religious person will ever change that.

With this sort of starting position, I am left wondering why we should we should even bother. What I would prefer to see is some sort of positive epistemic claim from the position of non-belief. All I have seen so far is a line of thinking that says, "I lack belief in God" and nothing which says "here is something we would expect to find if God exists, it doesn't exist."

Why? If fairies existed, and by extension their magic etc, everything we knew about physics and biology and science in general would be turned on its head. How is that different from a hypothetical revelation in the existence of God?

It's different to my position on God, because God affects more than physical principles. God has an impact on eternity, love, justice, hope, morality, logic, purpose and meaning + everything else that comes with being an un-embodied mind.

 

[BradCube]

But God will never be proven true or untrue, no matter how hard we try. So debating his existance is a trivial argument as it can come to no conclusion.

How does coming to a conclusion or proving God's existence affect its triviality? Regardless of whether we come to a conclusion, this does not affect the triviality of whether God actually exists.

As far as I can see, at most, it makes arguments surrounding Gods existence trivial.

 

[Kwayera]

Again, this is not what I am doing, you're using the genetic fallacy to invalidate my position.

I say: "The existence of God is not a trivial issue"

You say: "Oh you only say that because you believe God exists"

But your claim is entirely irrelevant as my claim stands independent of whether I believe God exists or not. My claims addresses the implications for the truth of Gods existence and doesn't even touch on whether belief in such a God is necessary.

It's not irrelevant at all (and I said nothing about the necessity of belief). That's what you're doing. You say that the question of God is more important than the question of fairies, but the only explanation for that is because you believe in a God, and you don't believe in fairies, and thus it's impossible to equate the two.

I'd think that anyone who believed in fairies and not in God would be horribly offended by your position of the relative importances of your supernatual beliefs. Your claim, as you say, "addresses the implications for the truth of Gods existence". What about the implications of the existence of fairies? Are they more or less than God, and if so, why, in your opinion?

I have already detailed my points in earlier days on this thread. We can go through some of them again if you like? I have a feeling that much of it will prove fruitless as you have already said:

With this sort of starting position, I am left wondering why we should we should even bother. What I would prefer to see is some sort of positive epistemic claim from the position of non-belief. All I have seen so far is a line of thinking that says, "I lack belief in God" and nothing which says "here is something we would expect to see if God exists, it doesn't exist."

Largely because I have seen all of the "proofs" offered and none - none - have been what I could legitimately consider as evidence. You could never present any evidence to change my mind because there isn't any.

It's different to my position on God, because God affects more than physical principles. God has an impact on eternity, love, justice, hope, morality, logic, purpose and meaning + everything else that comes with being an un-embodied mind.

That's your opinion. That's not truth. Therefore, you can't equate what you think your God has an impact on with that people who believe in fairies believe that fairies have an impact on, and think yours is more significant.

 

[moll.]

How does coming to a conclusion or proving God's existence affect its triviality? Regardless of whether we come to a conclusion, this does not affect the triviality of whether God actually exists.

As far as I can see, at most, it makes arguments surrounding Gods existence trivial.

...
That's what I said.

 

[BradCube]

It's not irrelevant at all (and I said nothing about the necessity of belief). That's what you're doing. You say that the question of God is more important than the question of fairies, but the only explanation for that is because you believe in a God, and you don't believe in fairies, and thus it's impossible to equate the two.

But the only explanation for that position is not because I believe in a God, it's because of my belief in what Gods existence (if he does exist) would implicate. Again, this belief would be the same regardless of whether I believed in God or not. If I were an atheist, my position on this matter would still be the same.

I'd think that anyone who believed in fairies and not in God would be horribly offended by your position of the relative importances of your supernatual beliefs. Your claim, as you say, "addresses the implications for the truth of Gods existence". What about the implications of the existence of fairies? Are they more or less than God, and if so, why, in your opinion?

Apart from the strict similar supernatural properties in relation to the physical world, I would say that the implications of Gods existence are entirely different and more far reaching than that of a fairies existence. This is for all the reasons that I listed earlier (love, morality, logic, meaning, hope etc)

If the the fairy believer wants to be offended then that is their prerogative. At the end of the day, I'm happy to sit down with them and explain why I think the implications for Gods existence are further reaching than that of a fairies existence.

Largely because I have seen all of the "proofs" offered and none - none - have been what I could legitimately consider as evidence. You could never present any evidence to change my mind because there isn't any.

Well, even so, do you have any positive epistemic claim to put forward for your belief in atheism, or do you have an "absolute conviction that there is no god" because you are yet to see any good arguments for theism?

That's your opinion. That's not truth.

Yes, it's my opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to show. Is it that impossible to think that my opinion may be aligned with truth in some matters? Either this is just a blatant use of the genetic fallacy for your own kicks and giggles or I have missed you entirely. Suppose for example:

I say: "The square root of 4 is 2"

and you reply: "That's, your opinion. That's not truth"

In the same way, I'm not sure I understand your point here. I have never denied that this is my opinion - I am arguing that my opinion is true or correct

Therefore, you can't equate what you think your God has an impact on with that people who believe in fairies believe that fairies have an impact on, and think yours is more significant.

Have them give me their arguments for why the existence of fairies has as far (or further) reaching implications than that of God and I will believe too - provided they are sound of course

 

[BradCube]

...
That's what I said.

Ha ha. So you did! Mea Culpa

 

[Kwayera]

But the only explanation for that position is not because I believe in a God, it's because of my belief in what Gods existence (if he does exist) would implicate. Again, this belief would be the same regardless of whether I believed in God or not. If I were an atheist, my position on this matter would still be the same.

Apart from the strict similar supernatural properties in relation to the physical world, I would say that the implications of Gods existence are entirely different and more far reaching than that of a fairies existence. This is for all the reasons that I listed earlier (love, morality, logic, meaning, hope etc)

...that's your opinion, though. A believer in fairies (or unicorns, or the FSM, whatever) may have the opposite opinion. You can only say it is an opinion, because there is no objective truth in the relative importance of each belief - because they are relatively different in importance, depending on whether you believe in it/them or not.

Well, even so, do you have any positive epistemic claim to put forward for your belief in atheism, or do you have an "absolute conviction that there is no god" because you are yet to see any good arguments for theism?

Well it's two things, I guess. One, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for theism, just as (continuing my analogy), I haven't seen any convincing arguments for fairies. The other is that my "negative" position is a default position, one that didn't "come to pass" but instead has always been there. I've never believed in fairies; I've never believed in God; I've never believed in monsters under my bed. Like all supernatural occurances (and most things I guess), non-belief is the logical default position, because (epistemically) we can never know for sure of their existence (given their supernatuality).

Of course it's my opinion. I'm lost as to what you're trying to show. Is it that impossible to think that my opinion may be aligned with truth in some matters? Either this is just a blatant use of the genetic fallacy for your own kicks and giggles or I have missed you entirely. Suppose for example:

I say "The square root of 4 is 2"

and you reply: "That's, your opinion. That's not truth"

In the same way, I'm not sure I understand your point here. I have never denied that this is my opinion - I am arguing that my opinion is true or correct

Lol, equating a mathematical truth to what you're saying is a misstep on your part, given mathematics has objective proofs and God does not

I have no idea what you're going on about when you refer to the genetic fallacy, by the way. I'm just responding to what you're telling me.

 

[BradCube]

...that's your opinion, though. A believer in fairies (or unicorns, or the FSM, whatever) may have the opposite opinion. You can only say it is an opinion, because there is no objective truth in the relative importance of each belief - because they are relatively different in importance, depending on whether you believe in it/them or not.

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

For example, suppose a bank has allegedly been robbed. There is a dispute over whether the bank has been robbed or whether they had no money to start with. I would argue that despite what people believe (in regard to whether the bank had money or not) this does not change the implications of what it means if the bank has actually been robbed and they did have money. The implications of genuine robbery are just as relevant for both debaters even if they disagree on whether the bank has been robbed or not. They are two separate issues.

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

Well it's two things, I guess. One, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for theism, just as (continuing my analogy), I haven't seen any convincing arguments for fairies. The other is that my "negative" position is a default position, one that didn't "come to pass" but instead has always been there. I've never believed in fairies; I've never believed in God; I've never believed in monsters under my bed. Like all supernatural occurances (and most things I guess), non-belief is the logical default position, because (epistemically) we can never know for sure of their existence (given their supernatuality).

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

Also, I would like to add that I agree with you that scientific method can never be used to give proof of a supernatural entity - since the natural cannot test the supernatural. However, I would like to say that I think scientific findings combined with philosophy can make some headway in affirming or dis-affirming the existence of God. Also, you have to contend with personal revelation or experience. This, for that individual could (I think) properly be recognized as proof of God.

Lol, equating a mathematical truth to what you're saying is a misstep on your part, given mathematics has objective proofs and God does not

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

I have no idea what you're going on about when you refer to the genetic fallacy, by the way. I'm just responding to what you're telling me.

The genetic fallacy is the fallacy that argues that a belief is mistaken or false because of the way that belief originated. For example:

John: "Democracy is the best form of government"
Bill: "Oh you only say that because you were born in Australia"

How or why a belief came to be held is simply irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the proposition that is the object of that belief.

Have a look here for more info:
Fallacies [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]