Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[Gussy Booo]

We always remember the bad.
We never remember the good.

 

[ad infinitum]

To be honest I don't have a definition of god. To me that question is somewhat like asking of Lewis Carroll's Alice - how tall do you think she is, 5"2, 5"5? Sure, I have encountered a number of definitions of god put forward in the history of religious thought (to pick some random categories which are themselves broad: deism, pantheism, polytheism) but for me quibbling over which one is right or best suits me is like discussing what shade we should use between blonde and black to describe Alice's hair.

Compare also, to make the problem less a matter of fiction, a cryptozoologist who asks 'given that there may be an ancient, unobserved beast living at the bottom of the ocean, what do you think it looks like? Black, transluscent, fluorescent, tentacled, scaly? Would it be driven by instinct or intelligence, or guided by universal omniscience?'.

Wow, way to get lost in your muddled thoughts. This is why dumb people should be barred from studying philosophy, because I believe this boring obscurantism is a crime against human intelligence.

 

[KFunk]

Wow, way to get lost in your muddled thoughts. This is why dumb people should be barred from studying philosophy, because I believe this boring obscurantism is a crime against human intelligence.

So you think I ought to have a clear, unambiguous description of a divine being I don't believe in whose historical form is typically protean and often contradictory? Argue away.

 

[J O K E R]

believers in god are constantly asked to prove the existence of god. However can the athiest prove that the world did not come into existence by intelligent design but rather through accidental happenings. the question of prove must be asked both ways. also the big bang or evolution can not be used to prove the existence of god as a believer in god can simply retort well what came before the 'big mass of matter' or 'how did the big mass of matter come into existence'.

p.s i am not saying that the existence of god can not be proven. rather i do believe that there is alot of evidence for the existence of god which i can explian to you later.

 

[ad infinitum]

So you think I ought to have a clear, unambiguous description of a divine being I don't believe in whose historical form is typically protean and often contradictory? Argue away.

Well given your previous posts/comments I don't expect you to have a clear description of anything. I actually don't know what your position is (Atheist, Theist, Deist, etc).......it's just that your arguements are so obscure, muddled and digressive.

 

[KFunk]

Well given your previous posts/comments I don't expect you to have a clear description of anything.

Perhaps rightly. My aims in this thread are largely deconstructive. Moreover, I have lately become more sympathetic to metaphor - if language is holistic then stalwart analysis will always be unsatisfying. I <3 ambiguity.

I actually don't know what your position is (Atheist, Theist, Deist, etc).......it's just that your arguements are so obscure, muddled and digressive.

If you think a particular claim is bullshit or confused then you are free to call me on it and I will do my best to explain.

 

[ad infinitum]

Perhaps rightly. My aims in this thread are largely deconstructive. Moreover, I have lately become more sympathetic to metaphor - if language is holistic then stalwart analysis will always be unsatisfying. I <3 ambiguity.

Cool man, Good to know.

If you think a particular claim is bullshit or confused then you are free to call me on it and I will do my best to explain.

Ok are you an Athiest, Thiest, Diest, etc?

 

[KFunk]

Ok are you an Athiest, Thiest, Diest, etc?

I am neither a diest nor a theist. I am sympathetic to naturalistic forms of pantheism which would look to equate god with the universe, though in such cases I recall 'a rose by any other name...' and so fail to feel that such pantheism has much to offer beyond positing an object of spiritual fulfilment.

I tend to prefer the agnostic label as I generally feel that atheism is either too militant or claims too much. For example, I could never assent to the claim "god, in the most general sense possible, does not exist. period." It simply makes a claim beyond what I know, and perhaps even beyond what is knowable.

There are also some sophisticated and oddball conceptions of god that I can appreciate. For example, Immanual Kant's approach to god in the Critique in which he concludes (perhaps despairingly?) that although proof of god exceeds all possible cognition, and is therefore beyond our grasp, the idea of god may play an important regulative role both in structuring the way that we think about self and world, and in leading us towards an ideal moral theory. I relatively odd conception, which I nonetheless find fascinating, would be the kind of god you get in Levinas for whom god is described as infinity, or the farthest limit of Otherness, or the unknowable Other. Levinas is less interested in what can be said positively about god (the unknowable Other) so much as in what such a limiting idea(l) implies in the realm of ethics, meaning and the self-other relation.

The best I can give you, then, is that I am an agnostic who is most open to conceptions of god which deem definition impossible or meaningless, instead using the limit concept of god as a regulative ideal with respect to thought, life and everything in between.

 

[ad infinitum]

I am neither a diest nor a theist. I am sympathetic to naturalistic forms of pantheism which would look to equate god with the universe, though in such cases I recall 'a rose by any other name...' and so fail to feel that such pantheism has much to offer beyond positing an object of spiritual fulfilment.

I tend to prefer the agnostic label as I generally feel that atheism is either too militant or claims too much. For example, I could never assent to the claim "god, in the most general sense possible, does not exist. period." It simply makes a claim beyond what I know, and perhaps even beyond what is knowable.

An Atheist doesn't claim to know that God absolutely doesn't exist. He simply claims that there is no good reason to believe in god. You are an Athiest in regard to Zeus and Baal (are you making 'a claim beyond what is knowable' by not taking these Gods as truth?).

There are also some sophisticated and oddball conceptions of god that I can appreciate. For example, Immanual Kant's approach to god in the Critique in which he concludes (perhaps despairingly?) that although proof of god exceeds all possible cognition, and is therefore beyond our grasp, the idea of god may play an important regulative role both in structuring the way that we think about self and world, and in leading us towards an ideal moral theory.

...Kant?....Why on earth would appreciate such an abhorrent and backwards view? Time to move past the babyish views of the 18th century mate...

I relatively odd conception, which I nonetheless find fascinating, would be the kind of god you get in Levinas for whom god is described as infinity, or the farthest limit of Otherness, or the unknowable Other. Levinas is less interested in what can be said positively about god (the unknowable Other) so much as in what such a limiting idea(l) implies in the realm of ethics, meaning and the self-other relation.

Oh no...not good.

The best I can give you, then, is that I am an agnostic who is most open to conceptions of god which deem definition impossible or meaningless, instead using the limit concept of god as a regulative ideal with respect to thought, life and everything in between.

?right...

 

[KFunk]

An Atheist doesn't claim to know that God absolutely doesn't exist. He simply claims that there is no good reason to believe in god. You are an Athiest in regard to Zeus and Baal (are you making 'a claim beyond what is knowable' by not taking these Gods as truth?).

The point is that there is no one conception of god about which we can talk - there is a plurality of conceptions. Sure, I'm a Zeus atheist, but that is just one out of an infinite aray of conceptions of god. Historical gods with a personality and mythology attached are too easy to target - straw men in fact.

As to the rest of your post, you are being a really boring troll (calling Kant babyish is not only a 'fail' but betrays a complete lack of understanding). You could at least ask questions or try to make sense of what I'm talking about.

 

[ad infinitum]

The point is that there is no one conception of god about which we can talk - there is a plurality of conceptions. Sure, I'm a Zeus atheist, but that is just one out of an infinite aray of conceptions of god. Historical gods with a personality and mythology attached are too easy to target - straw men in fact.

As to the rest of your post, you are being a really boring troll (calling Kant babyish is not only a 'fail' but betrays a complete lack of understanding). You could at least ask questions or try to make sense of what I'm talking about.

Sorry It's a waste of time arguing against such failed obscurity..

 

[Teclis]

Sorry It's a waste of time arguing against such failed obscurity..

Oh my... wow... ad infinitum once again proves my point that he is, in fact, a moron...

Kfunk, who If I'm correct is studying Philosophy at UNSW... meaning he probably has smarts... just described his own very valid philosophical viewpoint on the existence of god(s), and you basically called it obscure...

ad infinitum... what expertise do you have in anything? Seriously... have you finished or started a Uni degree at all?

 

[ad infinitum]

Oh my... wow... ad infinitum once again proves my point that he is, in fact, a moron...

Kfunk, who If I'm correct is studying Philosophy at UNSW... meaning he probably has smarts... just described his own very valid philosophical viewpoint on the existence of god(s), and you basically called it obscure...

ad infinitum... what expertise do you have in anything? Seriously... have you finished or started a Uni degree at all?

Ew, because someone does a B Arts you think they 'have smarts', I would argue the contray. He admitted that his own view was 'oddball' so I have no idea what you are on about...You think you need to go to Uni (which I am) to come to the conclusion that belief in god is absurd? Sorry appeals to authority aren't as effective on those of us that don't take orders from a master (as self confessed mind slaves as you do).

 

[SnowFox]

Ew, because someone does a B Arts you think they 'have smarts', I would argue the contray. He admitted that his own view was 'oddball' so I have no idea what you are on about...You think you need to go to Uni (which I am) to come to the conclusion that belief in god is absurd? Sorry appeals to authority aren't as effective on those of us that don't take orders from a master (as self confessed mind slaves as you do).

Everything you have posted thus far in this forum has led me to the belief you are in Special Ed classes. You find something negative about everything and you're downright idiot and can not back anything up with valid proofs or sources, now bugger off and let mantello retake his throne as the village idiot.

 

[mirakon]

@ad infinitum

Perhaps, KFunk does have an 'oddball' line of thought, however this does not mean it's validity should be questioned. Original or out of the ordinary thoughts are not necessarily wrong. In actuality, KFunk, unlike you, has justified his point of view quite effectively.

Also, he is doing a BA in Philosophy, which does add credibility to his argument. It means that he at least knows what he is talking about.

His arguments may be obscure, but that's because this topic is obscure in itself. If the answer was blatantly obvious, as you imply it should be, people would have figured out if God existed by now.

 

[KFunk]

@ Teclis, Mirakon,

I appreciate it but don't bother engaging with ad infinitum's more outrageous claims. He is just a subtle troll.

He admitted that his own view was 'oddball' so I have no idea what you are on about...

Not quite - I targeted the views of Levinas as being oddball, though only insofar as they diverge significantly from common lay conceptions of god (his conceptions is more similar to what you would find in parts of the philosophical or theological 'academy'). As to Kant, even the current Pope Ratzinger has made reference to Kant's views as relevant to understanding contemporary debates (even if he ultimately disagrees with him).

There is nothing overtly strange about describing myself as agnostic.

 

[Sultun]

@ Teclis, Mirakon,

I appreciate it but don't bother engaging with ad infinitum's more outrageous claims. He is just a subtle troll.



Not quite - I targeted the views of Levinas as being oddball, though only insofar as they diverge significantly from common lay conceptions of god (his conceptions is more similar to what you would find in parts of the philosophical or theological 'academy'). As to Kant, even the current Pope Ratzinger has made reference to Kant's views as relevant to understanding contemporary debates (even if he ultimately disagrees with him).

There is nothing overtly strange about describing myself as agnostic.

Why do you call yourself an Agnostic? Why not embrace your God? The Pope is your teacher and you should fall into his arms and recieve his Grace. Yes Brother, I can see we think alike, but you must do away with tis athiest propganda (evidence/reason???pffft) and embrace the glory of faith.

 

[SnowFox]

Why do you call yourself an Agnostic? Why not embrace your God? The Pope is your teacher and you should fall into his arms and recieve his Grace. Yes Brother, I can see we think alike, but you must do away with tis athiest propganda (evidence/reason???pffft) and embrace the glory of faith.

I loled. Hard. With tears.

 

[BradCube]

Wow, so this was from ages ago. I have been inundated with copious amounts of work over the last few months. It had been bugging me that I never got to answer properly though
We were discussing the apparent "fine-tuning" of the universe and ways that this might fit within a naturalistic view of the world.

what about an endless cycle of big bangs / crunches?

This would certainly solve the probability issue but the Oscillating models face a few difficulties which, in my opinion, make them less desirable than the standard big bang model.

1. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems work against an oscillating model and predict that an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even in the case of inhomogeneous universes. When examining the impact of this discovery Hawking notes that the theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

2. There are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back into a new expansion phase in defiance of point 1.

3. Attempts made to discover the mass density sufficient to generate the gravitational attraction needed to halt and reverse the current expansion of the universe have consistently come up short.

4. The entropy needed for each expansion would cause each oscillation to have a larger radius and longer expansion time. This could allow for a potentially infinite future but not an infinite past since if you traced the oscillations backward in time they would get smaller and eventually arrive at a singularity.

5 An infinite series of expansions and contractions needs its own fine tuning in order to persist through that infinite series of contractions and expansions.

Apart from these scientific concerns, there is also philosophical problems when investigating the possibility of a universe that reaches back into the infinite past.
I will quickly present two arguments below:

The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things.
(1) An actually infinite number of things cannot exist
(2) A begginingless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things
(3) Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

The Impossibility of forming an actually infinite collections of things by adding one member after another:
(1) The series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another
(2) A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be actually infinite.
(3) Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite

It is for these reasons that I question the likely hood of multiverse theories that propose an endless cycle of big bangs/crunches. If I'm to be perfectly honest, the philosophical arguments make a whole lot more sense to me. This is because my scientific knowledge is lacking (I'm simply going from what I have read, and not what I understand in great detail).

also i dont recall hearing about multiverses in the bible, whats your point

The point is not that the Bible has all of the answers if that is what you mean. It's simply that I think the Christian worldview makes more sense of the data before us. Atheism seems to be lacking a sufficient explanation when examining the "fine-tuning" we observe. As a result, I ask, why hold onto it so dearly?

 

[BradCube]

Another lengthy reply to an old post from a while back. I have quoted myself so those who want to read can pick it up and follow along

Two points on this:
First, Teleological design arguments usually include the laws themselves when assessing the probability of life existing anywhere in the universe. It asks the question "why are the laws themselves the way they are?". For example, why is the gravitational constant the value it is? If the universe did come from nothing and by nothing, then what governs that these laws are the way they are? This means it is not good enough to simply claim that simple laws reduce the improbability of the events occurring because you first have to address the improbability of the laws themselves.

Perhaps because it's the only way the laws can be. I think the teleological argument begs the question "who made these laws the way they are that somehow allows life?" which is a bit fallacious. I guess what I'm saying is that I think you're addressing this point arse-backwards, obsessing on the outcome (us) and its improbability rather than the fact that the laws are just that - laws, and that's how they are. I really, really don't understand the obsession with chance - it's not like there was any room for variation in these laws, and one tweak would have made our existence impossible. They can't have been tweaked because they just are, improbability or not.

But that is exactly the point - "One tweak would have made our existence impossible". The fact that we do exist isn't proof that the laws themselves must be the way the way they are unless you are being circular and first assuming that the laws must be the way they are if we exist.
Also, the teleological argument doesn't beg the question by asking "who made these laws the way they are". It simply asks, "which makes most sense of the fine tuning we observe" and then proposes a designer as the best explanation.

Secondly let's assume for the sake of argument that all the probabilities when taken on their own aren't that unbelievable. Even when doing this, it still doesn't show that the culmination of all those events are "not that unbelievable". For example consider the rolling of a die. Taken in its own, the probability of rolling a six is not that unbelievable but rolling a six, six times in a row is a 1 in 46656 chance. This means that even if you are able to show that events when taken on their own are not that improbable, you still have to show that the combination of all of them is not that improbable.

Why?

I'm confused now. I explained why in the previous paragraph. The reason you have to show that the combination of all these events is not improbable is because improbability multiplied by improbability creates even larger improbability.

Again, this only works if you are presupposing a sort of naturalistic explanation. Flipping back to the poker parody, I could state:

"Personally, I don't get the obsession with the supposed "slight chance" of my getting 100 "royal flushes" in a row, because it clearly wasn't slight enough - I got it didn't I?". One could respond "yes, of course you got it, but I want to know how you got it based on the ridiculously high improbability of it happening by chance alone". The point is that chance alone does not seem to be a satisfactory answer. This is why mutiverse theories which have an eternal past have been put forward.

Yeah, its improbable, but governed by the laws of chance, it doesn't mean it could never happen. You don't need a guiding hand or outside influence to get 100 royal flushes in a row, however improbable.

Boy would I love to play poker with you!

On a more serious note, you are correct. It doesn't mean it could never happen (assuming for the moment that a universe could bring itself into existence from nothing) . It's just that the probability of it happening is so low it feels like intellectual suicide to put this forward as the most plausible explanation - especially when we are talking about the standard big bang model which proposes a singular universe. That means that not only are these odds ridiculously low, but you've only got one chance to hit the mark. I honestly think a designer makes more sense of the data.

If the above is how you see the god-of-gaps argument, I'm not sure why you have such a problem with it. Essentially from what you have posted I see someone saying "We're not sure how to explain how this happened with our current models. God is currently the best explanation that fits the data and based on this we're proposing that God exists". How is this sort of thing different from any hypothesis (for example proposing the existence of elementary particles such as the higgs boson)? I'm genuinely interested in how you separate these two.

But God is never the best explanation because itself assumes something we don't know, can never know, and thus can never prove or understand the mechanism thereof. It's like saying "I don't know how the glass milk was spilt on the floor; I'm going to assume it was fairies rather than my dog and its big swooshy tail".

It's not at all like your example! In the cases we are discussing, we don't have good natural explanations and so then go on to look at supernatural explanations.

Re: elementary particles such as the Higgs - well, you're right, we don't know they exist. Mathematically we suspect that they do, but we don't know, and that's why we're trying to find them. We don't just assume, move on, and hope for the best.

I never said anything about assuming, moving on and hoping for the best!

If I was to guess (and so point out if I am incorrect) I would say that you would claim that the only valid hypothesis are those which can be scientifically demonstrated or proven. If that is the case, what happens when we reach the limits of scientific testing? I'm thinking of early stages of the universe or other scenarios where our knowledge bottoms out. What are we supposed to believe today in the cases where science is unable to provide a satisfactory answer and a supernatural explanation fits the data? There seems to be a point at which you're discounting supernatural explanations just on principle.

That assumes there ever will be a point. Taking your example, even now, with our primitive technology, we can see almost all the way to the beginning of the universe. There may be a stage where we reach the limit of the ability to gather knowledge, true, but personally I doubt that, and I will never resort to a supernatural explanation when there is a naturalistic counterpart, because supernatural explanations by their very nature are inadequete.

So I take it then that you think we will eventually have a theory of "everything"? Even if this were to happen (which I doubt) what should someone do today without a theory of everything?
Also would be keen to hear you outline or explain why you believe supernatural explanations are inadequate. Do you simply mean that they are inadequate as natural explanations (which is obvious) or something more?

But clearly you are ignoring some apparently impossible ideas -namely that of the supernatural. You seem to be ignoring these because you assume that natural explanations are the only valid ones. Is that a fair description? If so, I would challenge you to defend this position.

I will cease ignoring supernatural ideas when we see some proof of their existence - which we never will.

It seems we are caught in a vicious cycle here

I was essentially asking you for a positive explanation for your naturalism. You can't simply turn around and put forward a circular assumption. If the reason you ignore supernatural ideas is because you assume that the supernatural does not exist, how does this at all show your naturalistic position to be true?

Well it depends on what you regard as proof doesn't it? Certainly I don't think we'll have any proof in the mathematical sense. However, I think we can have sound philosophical arguments (whose premises can rely on scientific data) which could give us probability to work with.

Philosophy isn't evidence, and I challenge you to provide scientific data that has had philosophical premises rested unchallenged upon it.

I'm curious as to what you think a sound deductive argument is, if not a proof or evidence of some sort?

As to your second point, sure. Let's look at a version of the teleological argument:
1) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
2) It is not due to physical necessity or chance
3) Therefore, it is due to design

A defense of premise (2) will fall back into the area of science when one starts to examine the probability and possibility of the fine tuning being a result of physical necessity or chance.
Whether the argument or premises are challenged is not my concern here. I am simply trying to show that philosophical arguments can interact and engage with scientific evidence.

What I meant is that if you always assume that the science-of-gaps (the belief that there is always a scientific explanation available that will eventually be found) is the preferable route to take, then it is unfalsifiable in the sense that it assumes that there is a scientific answer even if there isn't one - it will continue to be pushed forward as truth even if there is never a satisfactory scientific answer found.

Would you rather we stopped looking for an answer?

Not at all - but don't twist what I was saying. I am simply pointing out that considering only scientific answers may not yield us with the greatest amount of true beliefs possible. I would seek to consider all answers and then believe that which is most plausible (or confess I don't know if none seem plausible).