Suggestions that god exists

HeLiXe

All hail the universe!

GeorgCantor

Nah, that was the Satan.

DaveC426913

That's what Medieval parents used to say to their teenaged kids:

"What's wrong with you?? Are you on the Satan?"

HeLiXe

you guys are killing me!.....*thinks* If you guys are killing me does that mean I'm on the satan?

HeLiXe

Relena I was following your reasoning up until this:

Considering this:

If God exists outside of the rules of the universe how can any questions about it from creatures within the universe be absurd? It could only be absurd if the rules outside of the universe were common sense, and also if the nature of God was common sense.

mynameinc

No, that means you're both on the Satan, and therefore must be placed on the racks!

Angry Citizen

I think this is absurd. We shouldn't even be asking this question, this question about the God Myth. Seriously, think about it. In physics, did we try to ascertain the existence of quarks before we knew there were even atoms? There is nothing to suggest the existence of God or any type of god whatsoever. Until there is, the only rational position is atheism.

At the moment, deities are an abstract concept developed from the mind of men. At most, there can only be two billion people who have gotten the 'divine question' correct, because each and every religion is wholly different from one another, and the biggest religion contains two billion people. This fact is beyond question. Another fact that is beyond question is that over four billion people are absolutely, unequivocally wrong. This second fact establishes the precedent that deities can be fictional works of the mind of men. With this second fact established, and the aforementioned lack of proof, how is even agnosticism logical?

HeLiXe

DaveC426913

This is quite simply not true.

There is lots of evidence.

There is lots of evidence of UFOs too. It's just not irrefutable evidence.

Atheists refute the veracity of all of the evidence of God (reports of phenomena, recorded eyewitness accounts, etc.) We don't trust the source, but that isn't by any means unanimous.

Don't confuse lack of compelling evidence with lack of evidence.

You have demonstrated that 2/3rds of the population are delusional. So what? That says nothing about the other third.

If you were in a classroom and the prof asked a question that everyone got wrong up till you, would you be happy if he concluded that you must be wrong too?

Math Is Hard

Except kittens.

Academic

If somebody did make a claim about quarks before any evidence was in then the only rational position would be agnostic on quarks. For any two state system, in lieu of evidence there is a 50/50 chance that it could be in either state. That number can only be changed by evidence.

Angry Citizen

By all means, show me 'lots' of evidence for deities. If you're referring to such texts as the Bible... perhaps you'd like to tell me what Jesus' last words were?

It says a lot. It sets a precedent that people can and will lie and/or misinterpret events, and that these people will gain immense followings in spite of their lack of truth.

Only if the question was, "Elucidate upon the equations which govern the quantum theory of gravity." -- especially if it took place in the 19th century. Again, nothing suggests God or gods. There is no evidence, let alone compelling evidence; the rubbish which is offered is extremely self-contradictory and contains no information value whatsoever. Gods are the result of human imagination. That should be the opinion of any rational individual, until such time as evidence is offered which can be verified as having actually occurred. It is only after evidence is offered that one can become an agnostic. And as you say, it's only after compelling evidence that some hypothesis can be called viable.

Lets put this another way. Say you're investigating the Battle of Verdun as part of a gen-ed history class. The usual WW I players were the suspects -- Germans, French, etc, no supernatural events, just mundane war. Now I ask you: In your term paper, do you extol upon the possibility that hordes of ninja warriors slaughtered all the Germans, or do you discuss the key points of the battle, the reason for the battle, and the eventual outcome of the battle and its larger effect on the war? The point is, nothing suggests ninja warriors were present in the battle, just as there is nothing to suggest a sky fairy sits in heaven hitting ctrl-alt-smite on anyone who upsets him.

Evo

Lets' remember to remain respectful of people belief's.

No one here can say with 100% certainty that there are not supernatural beings that cannot be detected.

DaveC426913

You are welcome to voice your opinion, but I see nothing in there that warrants being addressed. It all sounds pretty rhetorical.

stevenb

I follow your logic here, but there is one aspect that bothers me a little. That is, we are talking about the "big question" here. The fact that we exist and the fact that we observe that there is a universe is evidence of something. As humans we want to answer that question, no matter how difficult (or even impossible) it is to answer. So we have an observation and at least two possibilities to explain it as follows:

1. We can explain everything with scientific laws. Note that I said explain, not describe. Science has yet to explain anything. It simply describes observations in terms of simple rules. The origin of these rules is still a mystery.

2. We can attribute all mysteries to a supreme being that is not bound by rules or ideas that we can comprehend.

As scientists we are not allowed to think about option 2, but as humans we have that right. As I alluded to before, agnosticism is a rational point of view, since we have no proof that science is even capable of answering the big question. We also have no proof that god exists. So, acknowledging that we don't know is not irrational.

If you want to claim that atheism (as defined by the statement that god does not exist) is rational, then you have to have proof that science is capable of answering the big question. Note, that you don't need the actual scientific explanation, but you do need to know, with absolute certainty, that a scientific answer can be found. I've never seen a convincing proof of this. If I had such proof, I would be an atheist, at the front of the line.

Angry Citizen

I would like to offer a third option, and that is that we simply don't know yet. But god-of-the-gaps arguments just don't cut it. Maybe science can't explain first cause. Maybe it can. If it can't, though, that doesn't automatically mean God did it.

I would amend that definition as follows: "God does not exist, based on the evidence (and lack thereof)." No self-respecting atheist would say God does not exist without that qualifier. An atheist would look at the evidence and conclude that there's a precedent for false reports, and that no single religion can really say it has any more evidence than another religion.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide such a proof. And that's why I'm not a theist. I know when to sit back and say, "I really don't know. Sorry mate." Perhaps neither God nor science will ever be able to adequately explain such mysteries as First Cause. But again, until such time as evidence for God comes to light, considering God at all is abstract and useless. And that's why I'm an atheist.

stevenb

Interesting comments. I mentioned earlier on that I need to be careful when defining atheism. The "big question" is difficult enough without adding semantic confusion. Many comments you make would lead me to call you more of an agnostic than an atheist, but perhaps my definitions are too severe. There is of course a wide range of grey if we go from 100% belief in a God to 100% belief that there is not, and can not be, a God. I'm actually happy to hear that no self-respecting atheist would say God does not exist without your qualifier, or at least some type of qualifier. Although, I have managed to run across a number of self-disrespecting atheists, for lack of a better term.