Is There Evidence of God Through Human Introspection?

[Iacchus32]

If God does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads! So what if the probability of life on this planet began with a couple of flashes of lightning in a pool of water (or, a myriad of lightning flashes -- each time rearranging the molecular structure of the water -- over the eons). It all sounds plausible to me! Neither does it negate a God, in His "infinite way," in any way shape or form.

If God does exist, then perhaps we should be looking at the whole thing holistically, rather than by digging in the soil and taking soil samples, dissecting anatomy at the cellular level, and in effect tearing the whole process apart until it's beyond recognition. There are many alternative avenues to be taken, the beginning of which would be human introspection.

So, how is it that we can even question if God exists if it wasn't something inherent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

Sure it can!


EDIT: Changed "pretty ripe" to "plausible."

 

[Eh]

So, how is it that we can even question if God exists if it wasn't something inherent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

No, don't be silly. One can question the existence of gods, santa, aliens, beings with magic powers and other cultural constructs without first having it as something inherent to us.

 

[BoulderHead]

and around and around and around and around...here we go again.

If God does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads!

Prove it.

…So what if the probability of life on this planet began with a couple of flashes of lightning in a pool of water (or, a myriad of lightning flashes -- each time rearranging the molecular structure of the water -- over the eons). It all sounds pretty "ripe" to me!

What is so ripe, cannot you image a God capable of creating life in that manner?

..Neither does it negate a God,..

In other words; there will never be a time or circumstance when the avenue for belief in a deity will be impossible. What does this tell us?

…in His "infinite way," in any way shape or form.

You can believe in God(s), you can believe in “His” infinite way, not so infinite way, or any kind of way…

If God does exist, then perhaps we should be …

If…if…if…if God doesn’t, then perhaps we shouldn’t.

So, how is it that we can even question if God exists if it wasn't something inherent with who we were?

I was born without knowledge of such a thing. I cannot even recall ever thinking about such a thing prior to someone else bringing up the idea. What was inherent was no conception of what you are talking about.

Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

Or indoctrination.

 

[Mentat]

People, we really must stop with these religious threads...

While it's here, though, I just want to say that I disagree with the idea that, if God existed, it would be obvious. The God of the Bible has set out specific reasons why He cannot be obvious about His existence...PM me if you want an explanation.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
No, don't be silly. One can question the existence of gods, santa, aliens, beings with magic powers and other cultural constructs without first having it as something inherent to us.

One can question the validity of E = MC2 as well. So what are you trying to tell me, that 1 + 1 = 3?

I personally don't maintain a belief in Santa Claus (probably why I don't spend much time dwelling on Christmas), but that doesn't automatically negate the possiblity of God does it? If 1 + 1 = 2, then why can't God exist as well?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Mentat
People, we really must stop with these religious threads...

I don't agree that this topic is religious. The last word from Kerrie was;

"If you notice, the Religion forum no longer has "God" labeled in it...discussions regarding God must be philosophical only in the philosophy forum if they are to resume here..."

I don't think Iacchus is pushing a particular religion, but merely being philosophical about God in general.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I personally don't maintain a belief in Santa Claus

Why not? for if Santa Claus does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads!

...but that doesn't automatically negate the possiblity of God does it?

No more than refusal to believe in Santa negates the possibility of Santa.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
One can question the validity of E = MC2 as well. So what are you trying to tell me, that 1 + 1 = 3?

No, I'm telling you the argument you made above is nonsense. How you equate the existence of magical beings with math and relativity is beyond me.

If 1 + 1 = 2, then why can't God exist as well?

Man, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Prove it.

How so? By tearing it down piece by piece or, by trying to understand how it works and comes together as a whole?

What is so ripe, cannot you image a God capable of creating life in that manner?

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that in all actuallity this is probably how it occurred. And by "ripe," I mean it's a fertile idea which is ripe for the picking.

In other words; there will never be a time or circumstance when the avenue for belief in a deity will be impossible. What does this tell us?

What it tells me is that there will always be those who wish to scoff, in which I guess I've come to the right place, or have I?

You can believe in God(s), you can believe in “His” infinite way, not so infinite way, or any kind of way…

I can also choose to experience what it means as well, rather than just have knowledge (or faith) in something.

If…if…if…if God doesn’t, then perhaps we shouldn’t.

Are you suggesting that the proof is forthcoming that He doesn't exist? If not, then I guess we have grounds for debating it now don't we?

I was born without knowledge of such a thing. I cannot even recall ever thinking about such a thing prior to someone else bringing up the idea. What was inherent was no conception of what you are talking about.

So, is there anything that you have learned about things inherent with our nature since after your birth?

Would you say the understanding of 1 + 1 = 2 is inherent? If not, then how could you possibly understand it to be so?

Or indoctrination.

Yes, there's always that possibility.

And yet if God does exist, then I'd say He's got a lot of people fooled, because He's done such damn good job of creating "this illusion" we call the material world. Hmm ... It almost sounds like "magic" now doesn't it? ... And a lot of people questioning as well.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I don't agree that this topic is religious. The last word from Kerrie was;

"If you notice, the Religion forum no longer has "God" labeled in it...discussions regarding God must be philosophical only in the philosophy forum if they are to resume here..."

I don't think Iacchus is pushing a particular religion, but merely being philosophical about God in general.

Thanks, I was going to suggest that he leave it up to the mentors to decide.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
While it's here, though, I just want to say that I disagree with the idea that, if God existed, it would be obvious. The God of the Bible has set out specific reasons why He cannot be obvious about His existence...PM me if you want an explanation.

Acutally I think the answer becomes more readily apparent to the degree that you're looking for it. Which isn't to say that people aren't going to believe what they want to believe, because that's very true as well. But then again, taking a poll is by no means going to solve the issue either.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
No, I'm telling you the argument you made above is nonsense. How you equate the existence of magical beings with math and relativity is beyond me.

Why is it that self-certainty and foolishness tend to go hand in hand?

Man, what the hell are you talking about?

There's nothing about human intelligence that doesn't conceptualize, be it about math, God, or whatever. So you can't discount God based upon the fact that it's a conceptualization alone which, is what it seems you're trying to do with me.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Why not? for if Santa Claus does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads!

Absolutely! ...

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How so? By tearing it down piece by piece or, by trying to understand how it works and comes together as a whole?

Prove that if God exists, the evidence is all around us any way you’re able to do so. In other words; support your assertion.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that in all actuallity this is probably how it occurred. And by "ripe," I mean it's a fertile idea which is ripe for the picking.

Ok, I think in fact that I did misunderstand what “ripe” meant.

What it tells me is that there will always be those who wish to scoff, in which I guess I've come to the right place, or have I?

Call it scoffing if you want, but what it was meant to tell you is that if you’re going to demand the nonexistence of God to be utterly proven, prior to cessation of belief, that forever will you be a theist. So, it is a pointless point because you could just as easily exchange Santa for God.

I can also choose to experience what it means as well, rather than just have knowledge (or faith) in something.

So long as you don’t wave around the big idea that everyone else is in the same position as you I don’t really have a problem with that.

Are you suggesting that the proof is forthcoming that He doesn't exist?

I’m suggesting there may be other matters to attend besides driving ourselves insane with “ifs”.

If not, then I guess we have grounds for debating it now don't we?

Yes, over and over and over and over,…, endlessly…

So, is there anything that you have learned about things inherent with our nature since after your birth?

Yes, I seek the fetal heartbeat and warmth.

Would you say the understanding of 1 + 1 = 2 is inherent? If not, then how could you possibly understand it to be so?

No, it had to be explained over and over and over and over because it isn’t inherent, it is assigned, and must therefore be memorized. Are you suggesting I should memorize that God exists, and if so, why?

Yes, there's always that possibility.

Finally, something we may agree on!
Applying it honestly to yourself will be the tricky part.

And yet if God does exist, then I'd say He's got a lot of people fooled, because He's done such damn good job of creating "this illusion" we call the material world. Hmm ... It almost sounds like "magic" now doesn't it? ... And a lot of people questioning as well.

The “Tricky-God” scenario, as I coined the phrase…
Who am I, in that case, to attempt to defeat the wishes of God? If ‘he’ wants it that way, fine. Interesting too, you use of the word “illusion”. Is this god you have invented incapable of creating more than illusion?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why is it that self-certainty and foolishness tend to go hand in hand?

I don't know, because people who believe in magical beings tend to be fools?

There's nothing about human intelligence that doesn't conceptualize, be it about math, God, or whatever. So you can't discount God based upon the fact that it's a conceptualization alone which, is what it seems you're trying to do with me.

Err, no. I'm telling you we can discount the silly premise that belief in gods is evidence for gods in the same sense that belief in leprechauns and fairies does not constitute evidence for said entities.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Prove that if God exists, the evidence is all around us any way you’re able to do so. In other words; support your assertion.

You begin by saying the assertion "must" be supportable if, in fact He does exist, in which case it doesn't require proof, as much as the realization that He does exist. The difference here being if someone is willing to listen (due to their own questioning perhaps) or, if they're totally close-minded about it.

Ok, I think in fact that I did misunderstand what “ripe” meant.

Call it scoffing if you want, but what it was meant to tell you is that if you’re going to demand the nonexistence of God to be utterly proven, prior to cessation of belief, that forever will you be a theist.

In which case we seem to be put in the position to where we're to choose one or the other aren't we?

So, it is a pointless point because you could just as easily exchange Santa for God.

And yet 1 + 1 does not equal 3, or does it?

So long as you don’t wave around the big idea that everyone else is in the same position as you I don’t really have a problem with that.

What about this great big wonderful idea about the theory of evolution then? Aren't we basically putting everyone in the same category as well?

I’m suggesting there may be other matters to attend besides driving ourselves insane with “ifs”.

You mean like quantum theory?

Yes, over and over and over and over,…, endlessly…

Yes, and we no doubt here about the merits of quantum theory over and over again ...

No, it had to be explained over and over and over and over because it isn’t inherent, it is assigned, and must therefore be memorized.

Well, it was pretty "obvious" when it was explained to me.

Are you suggesting I should memorize that God exists, and if so, why?

Absolutely not.

Finally, something we may agree on!
Applying it honestly to yourself will be the tricky part.

Indeed, and yet one can only truly speak for oneself.

The “Tricky-God” scenario, as I coined the phrase…
Who am I, in that case, to attempt to defeat the wishes of God? If ‘he’ wants it that way, fine. Interesting too, you use of the word “illusion”. Is this god you have invented incapable of creating more than illusion?

Of course. And yet I would be even greater than He, if He were truly "my invention."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Eh
I don't know, because people who believe in magical beings tend to be fools?

What do you mean by magic? Something which isn't possible, or real? Whereas belief in and of itself does not accomplish anything, as it's comparable to having knowledge of something, but without the actual experience which gave rise to it in the first place.

Err, no. I'm telling you we can discount the silly premise that belief in gods is evidence for gods in the same sense that belief in leprechauns and fairies does not constitute evidence for said entities.

And yet all this suggests is that there is something going on, possibly supernatural, that we don't understand.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
You begin by saying the assertion "must" be supportable if, in fact He does exist, in which case it doesn't require proof, as much as the realization that He does exist. The difference here being if someone is willing to listen (due to their own questioning perhaps) or, if they're totally close-minded about it.

No, I’m making no such assertion as this. You are the one who made the claim concerning evidence, not me. I’m asking you to support your assertion. I’m still waiting for an answer.

In which case we seem to be put in the position to where we're to choose one or the other aren't we?

False, without some personal knowledge about it there is nothing to choose at all.

And yet 1 + 1 does not equal 3, or does it?

You completely miss the point. The number three could have just as easily been assigned to represent the amount of fingers on one hand. By convention it represents less than this, and calling it anything you please will not change the fact that your finger count isn’t going to either increase or decrease.

What about this great big wonderful idea about the theory of evolution then? Aren't we basically putting everyone in the same category as well?

You mean like quantum theory?

Yes, and we no doubt here about the merits of quantum theory over and over again ...

You’ve been fishing for herring, I see, and have caught a few of the red ones. No thanks, I don’t have an appetite for fish tonight.

Well, it was pretty "obvious" when it was explained to me.

BS, you had to memorize it just like everyone else.

Indeed, and yet one can only truly speak for oneself.

Yes, and I have been honest with myself. Does this mean you should believe me, no, and that is why you shouldn’t expect anyone to believe you either.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
No, I’m making no such assertion as this. You are the one who made the claim concerning evidence, not me. I’m asking you to support your assertion. I’m still waiting for an answer.

What I'm saying is, if in fact God does exist, and we (the majority or, whatever the "we" implies) are unable to ascertain this, then perhaps we're going about it the wrong way.

Granted, I don't have a whole long list of things to rattle off to you at this time about the evidence but, I will say that I have been able to ascertain this question for myself. While I do know for a fact that a majority of the people are in the dark on the matter, whether they say they believe or they don't.

False, without some personal knowledge about it there is nothing to choose at all.

Do you have some personal knowledge on the theory of evolution then or, have you pretty much taken it upon "faith?"

You completely miss the point. The number three could have just as easily been assigned to represent the amount of fingers on one hand. By convention it represents less than this, and calling it anything you please will not change the fact that your finger count isn’t going to either increase or decrease.

No, the number 3 follows in succession to the number 2, and it's quite clear that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, unless of course you would have me believe otherwise?

Actually, I don't know what the heck it is you're trying to say?

You’ve been fishing for herring, I see, and have caught a few of the red ones. No thanks, I don’t have an appetite for fish tonight.

Indeed, some people might consider such things as quantum theory a "useless obsession."

BS, you had to memorize it just like everyone else.

Memorizing the numbering tables, perhaps, but I sure don't remember having a problem memorizing 1 + 1 = 2. Irregardless, it no longer requires someone to repeat it over and over again which, is the whole point, because it's blatantly obvious now.

Yes, and I have been honest with myself. Does this mean you should believe me, no, and that is why you shouldn’t expect anyone to believe you either.

Then why should I even have to consider what you have to say here now?

Actually I'm pretty good about keeping my mouth shut around other people about such things, but you know what, that doesn't leave much else to talk about -- especially when you're trying to be honest about it.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What I'm saying is, if in fact God does exist, and we (the majority or, whatever the "we" implies) are unable to ascertain this, then perhaps we're going about it the wrong way.

So we should just keep at it until we have ascertained that God exists, even if God does not?

Granted, I don't have a whole long list of things to rattle off to you at this time about the evidence…

That’s exactly what I thought, however that isn’t exactly what I meant. Supposing I decide that God exists I want to know why I should find evidence all around me. In other words, why couldn’t God have created everything without leaving evidence? I especially ask this since you yourself spoke of what a good job God seemed to be doing of fooling people…
Does that help to clarify my thoughts?

…but, I will say that I have been able to ascertain this question for myself. While I do know for a fact that a majority of the people are in the dark on the matter, whether they say they believe or they don't.

Yes I know, it’s terrible to have the answers and yet be surrounded by the profane.

…Do you have some personal knowledge on the theory of evolution then or, have you pretty much taken it upon "faith?"

Fishing again I see.

No, the number 3 follows in succession to the number 2, and it's quite clear that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, unless of course you would have me believe otherwise?

You miss the point, again. Humans defined it to be that way, no big mystery there. Simply swap everything you know about the symbol 2 with the symbol 3. Now 1+1=3, 1+1+1=2, and 2+3=5. As long as you remain consistent it works, regardless of the particular symbols used, so there is nothing magical about 1+1=2, please read over my statements again. The concept of 2 being twice as many as 1 is something else, but by now I have grown weary and don’t recall what you were trying to get at by bringing this up in the first instance.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
So we should just keep at it until we have ascertained that God exists, even if God does not?

Actually I don't have to do anything about it, it's not that big of a deal. Only problem is, it doesn't leave me with much to do in my spare time.

That’s exactly what I thought, however that isn’t exactly what I meant. Supposing I decide that God exists I want to know why I should find evidence all around me. In other words, why couldn’t God have created everything without leaving evidence?

If God is the creator, and we are His creation, then "we" are the evidence. That's my whole point, in which case we needn't look much further than ourselves, at least inintially.

Or, let's say you tear down the whole mountain to examine every last grain of sand, at some point you're going to lose sight of the fact that the mountain exists. Would this be God's fault? No, it's because we failed to see the mountain for what it really is (in the holistic sense).

I especially ask this since you yourself spoke of what a good job God seemed to be doing of fooling people…
Does that help to clarify my thoughts?

No, but it does encourage you to inquire about it. And how else would you learn if you didn't ask questions? So, perhaps there's good reason for God to play hide-and-seek with us?

Yes I know, it’s terrible to have the answers and yet be surrounded by the profane.

"Dogs in the street ..."

Fishing again I see.

No, just redirecting your questions in the way you seem to be posing them upon me (to level the playing field a little).

You miss the point, again. Humans defined it to be that way, no big mystery there. Simply swap everything you know about the symbol 2 with the symbol 3. Now 1+1=3, 1+1+1=2, and 2+3=5. As long as you remain consistent it works, regardless of the particular symbols used, so there is nothing magical about 1+1=2, please read over my statements again.

No, the concept is not derived from the symbol, the symbol is derived from the concept. Therefore the concept 1 + 1 = 2 will always remain the same.

The concept of 2 being twice as many as 1 is something else ...

Like I said ...

... but by now I have grown weary and don’t recall what you were trying to get at by bringing this up in the first instance.

Just because the notion of Santa Claus, God and the Tooth Fairy are similar "concepts," by no means implies that all, if any, are fictitious, as is commonly held.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If God is the creator, and we are His creation, then "we" are the evidence. That's my whole point, in which case we needn't look much further than ourselves, at least inintially.

But, since this takes us in a circle (if we believe then the evidence is all around us, and all the evidence then points to God…) we end up with your original statement representing nothing of significance. [zz)]

No, the concept is not derived from the symbol, the symbol is derived from the concept. Therefore the concept 1 + 1 = 2 will always remain the same.

*sigh*
I never said the concept was derived from the symbol, I said in effect that any symbols could have been used in place of what we have now. The concept of your head and my head being twice as many heads as either of us have on our own is the important part. So, when you hit me with 1+1=2, sometimes I have to pause and wonder whether it’s the symbols having a special meaning for you, or the concept behind them. I hope it’s the concept, but I’m not certain.

Just because the notion of Santa Claus, God and the Tooth Fairy are similar "concepts," by no means implies that all, if any, are fictitious, as is commonly held.

Good, because I'd like to talk about the Tooth Fairy for just a short while (the little Satan character on my shoulder is getting really upset with me).

 

[Yahweh]

I was interested by the title of this thread...

Hint: If you are looking for evidence of god(s), you aint going to find it.

Ultimately, the question comes down to "is absence of evidence really evidence of absence".

If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there.

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.

If you ask to prove god(s) does not exist, I'd be a bit in the dark as to how I would demonstrate empirical evidence against the existence of god(s) (or against the existence of anything for that matter).

People who say "look, evidence for God is all around us" are only wasting my time...

 

[Mumeishi]

Faith is a short-circuiting of normal thought processes. Believers are encouraged to simply believe without rational thought or any need for evidence and their rewards are emotional gratification. Belief rests on circular arguments which are constructed after the existence of God is presupposed.

eg.
1 God exists
2 So everything was made by God
3 Therefore everything is evidence for God
4 And therefore God exists
(argument depends on starting with God-belief)

or

1 God exists
2 One of God's qualities is that he transcends evidence and reason
3 There is no reliable evidence or reason for believing in God
4 But that doesn't count against Him because of #2, maybe it even confirms His nature
5 Therefore God exists
(argument depends on starting with God-belief)

Another common fallacy is the one that because God cannot be disproved, it is equally valid to believe as to disbelieve, its just a matter of choice or faith. Yes, it can be a matter of choice or faith, but that is a choice between unjustified belief and healthy skepticism. Believing the 'God hypothesis' is no more justified than any of the unlimited number of untestable hypotheses. It is not justified to grant a hypothesis any more than a purely hypothetical possibility of being true unless there is actual evidence for it and there is no justification for favouring one such hypothesis over the unlimited number of others that can be constructed.

Iacchus32, you unlikely to ever be convinced by our arguments because God-Belief is deeper in your psyche than rationality or evidence. The religious meme-complex is a cultural virus which is working you from the inside. That doesn't mean our arguments are entirely futile though, since we are 'playing for the audience'.

Here are some of the symptoms of this type of mind-virus:

1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ``faith.''

2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief (see below).

...

3. A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.

...

4. The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths. He may be similarly violent in his disposition towards apostates (people who once held the faith but have renounced it); or towards heretics (people who espouse a different --- often, perhaps significantly, only very slightly different --- version of the faith). He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which may function rather like a piece of anti-viral software.

...

5. The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the one whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence.

6. If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent --- a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St. Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea.

7. The internal sensations of the patient may be startlingly reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. This is an extremely potent force in the brain, and it is not surprising that some viruses have evolved to exploit it. St. Teresa of Avila's famously orgasmic vision is too notorious to need quoting again. More seriously, and on a less crudely sensual plane, the philosopher Anthony Kenny provides moving testimony to the pure delight that awaits those that manage to believe in the mystery of transubstantiation. After describing his ordination as a Roman Catholic priest, empowered by laying on of hands to celebrate Mass, he goes on that he vividly recalls...

This is a great article by the way:
Viruses of the Mind - Richard dawkins

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet all this suggests is that there is something going on, possibly supernatural, that we don't understand.

No it doesn't, it merely suggests some people believe in goofy things.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I was interested by the title of this thread...

Hint: If you are looking for evidence of god(s), you aint going to find it.

Ultimately, the question comes down to "is absence of evidence really evidence of absence".

No, the purpose of this thread is to suggest that you're not going to find God by being "narrow-minded." Because if He does exist, as "The Creator," then everything which has come into existence has come about through Him. In which case we have the whole Universe, including ourselves, to look to for evidence ... which, of course only stands to reason.

Now that isn't to say He does exist, I'm not saying that, and yet it does seem to imply the question could be answered with a simple yes or no. It almost neccesitates such a reply. In which case if we begin to look, I would suggest we begin looking for Him in the manifestation of everything -- i.e., in the "holistic sense" if you will. Rather than focusing on one or two specific areas, which greatly decreases your odds of "determining" anything.

For which reason I suggest the most likely fruitful approach would be human introspection -- rather than just the "external approach" -- because if He does exist, and wants us to know, then this is where we'll most likely find Him. Doesn't that make sense? And besides, we have thousands of years of human experience which will testify to just this.

And of course if we were to take the whole thing to Las Vegas, it would put the odds of God's likelihood at at least 50/50 which, are pretty favorable odds don't you think?

If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there.

What's this "we" stuff? ... And who's doing the experimenting?

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.

Who ever said that? What I'm saying is much easier than that ... that we shouldn't "assume" that He doesn't exist, in order to "prove" that He does. This is what I mean by being narrow-minded.

If you ask to prove god(s) does not exist, I'd be a bit in the dark as to how I would demonstrate empirical evidence against the existence of god(s) (or against the existence of anything for that matter).

And yet if He does exist, then "we" are the evidence. Of course how we construe the evidence may be another story.

People who say "look, evidence for God is all around us" are only wasting my time...

Yes, but they usually say it without thinking about what it means.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
Faith is a short-circuiting of normal thought processes. Believers are encouraged to simply believe without rational thought or any need for evidence and their rewards are emotional gratification. Belief rests on circular arguments which are constructed after the existence of God is presupposed.

To have faith by the way, is to have knowledge of something. Now what you do with that knowledge or, how you go about ascertaining it, is another story. This is why I choose not to pursue knowledge for knowledge's sake, but rather the experience -- which, leads to "true knowledge."

eg.
1 God exists
2 So everything was made by God
3 Therefore everything is evidence for God
4 And therefore God exists
(argument depends on starting with God-belief)

Which is absolutely true, if He "does" exist. This is why I suggest we shouldn't be so narrow-minded in our approach.

or

1 God exists
2 One of God's qualities is that he transcends evidence and reason
3 There is no reliable evidence or reason for believing in God
4 But that doesn't count against Him because of #2, maybe it even confirms His nature
5 Therefore God exists
(argument depends on starting with God-belief)

This is obviously less likely, otherwise how could we conceive of that which doesn't make itself known?

Another common fallacy is the one that because God cannot be disproved, it is equally valid to believe as to disbelieve, its just a matter of choice or faith.

This would be akin to rolling the dice, which doesn't suggest much either.

Yes, it can be a matter of choice or faith, but that is a choice between unjustified belief and healthy skepticism. Believing the 'God hypothesis' is no more justified than any of the unlimited number of untestable hypotheses. It is not justified to grant a hypothesis any more than a purely hypothetical possibility of being true unless there is actual evidence for it and there is no justification for favouring one such hypothesis over the unlimited number of others that can be constructed.

Does it sound like I'm suggesting you base the belief in God upon hypothesis alone?

Iacchus32, you unlikely to ever be convinced by our arguments because God-Belief is deeper in your psyche than rationality or evidence.

And yet if God does exist (it's either yes or no), then that opens up the door of plausibility that it's inherent with my nature, in which case it doesn't require that I look so deep. In other words it's quite possible that "I know what I know."

The religious meme-complex is a cultural virus which is working you from the inside. That doesn't mean our arguments are entirely futile though, since we are 'playing for the audience'. Here are some of the symptoms of this type of mind-virus:

And yet this is a white-washing of the entire religious experience, and merely demonstrates prejudice, not proof ... What you're referring to here is "blind-faith" by the way, and I'm afraid I don't suffer from any of those symptoms.

 

[Sikz]

So, how is it that we can even question if God exists if it wasn't something inherent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

So, how is it that we can even question if we were created by immortal extra-terrestrial elvis clones if it wasn't something inherrent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Sikz
So, how is it that we can even question if we were created by immortal extra-terrestrial elvis clones if it wasn't something inherrent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

Perhaps ...

And yet, there's something about this "God notion" which seems to keep cropping up time after time.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the purpose of this thread is to suggest that you're not going to find God by being "narrow-minded." Because if He does exist, as "The Creator," then everything which has come into existence has come about through Him. In which case we have the whole Universe, including ourselves, to look to for evidence ... which, of course only stands to reason.

Now that isn't to say He does exist, I'm not saying that, and yet it does seem to imply the question could be answered with a simple yes or no. It almost neccesitates such a reply. In which case if we begin to look, I would suggest we begin looking for Him in the manifestation of everything -- i.e., in the "holistic sense" if you will. Rather than focusing on one or two specific areas, which greatly decreases your odds of "determining" anything.

Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist. Such as in the example of square circles on a 2D plane, an object can be both square and circular at the same time, so square circles do not exist.

However, if defined properly, god(s) is what you would call an "unrestricted negative". It virtually translates into "Nothing rational can be said to support belief or disbelief in god(s)".

God(s) which is defined as having any kind of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. would be logically contradictory (assuming rational things can be defined about him).

About your "holistic" comment, I'll describe that along with the next quote...

For which reason I suggest the most likely fruitful approach would be human introspection -- rather than just the "external approach" -- because if He does exist, and wants us to know, then this is where we'll most likely find Him. Doesn't that make sense? And besides, we have thousands of years of human experience which will testify to just this.

Unless I don't understand correctly, you are not suggesting using scientific means to prove or disprove the existence of god(s), instead you are asking to use "holistic" or introspection (which is contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination). What you are suggesting sounds a lot like the Philosophy of Transcendentalism (which means existence of an ideal spiritual reality that transcends the empirical and scientific and is knowable through intuition or faith).

However, with that reasoning, you have essentially dug yourself into a foxhole.

If one's own faith (or inner convictions/introspection) say "my god(s) exists", and another has just as much faith that leads him to believes that its his god(s) (or no gods) exist, then using introspective reasoning has failed. It accomplishes nothing.

And of course if we were to take the whole thing to Las Vegas, it would put the odds of God's likelihood at at least 50/50 which, are pretty favorable odds don't you think?

Depends on which set of axioms you accept.

Personally, I'm one who believes all things which exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. Seeing as how god(s) cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, that pragmatically puts the odds about 0%.

What's this "we" stuff? ... And who's doing the experimenting?

Who ever said that? What I'm saying is much easier than that ... that we shouldn't "assume" that He doesn't exist, in order to "prove" that He does. This is what I mean by being narrow-minded.

Back to the talk about Unrestricted Negatives...

Why shouldn't I assume there are many gods which exist? Why shouldn't I assume the Christian God exists, but at the same time there is an unknown God which exists more supreme, but the Christian God doesn't know about.

In your context, I don't think its fair to call anyone close-minded. Do you deny the existence of Shiva, one of 330 million Hindu gods? If you accept that one thing (aside from the "self") is possible, you must accept that all things are possible (however that is self-contradictory).

Essentially, if one accepts the existence of one thing, yet denies the existence of others which are equally possible, while claiming those who don't believe such-and-such are closeminded, they would be making it very hard for a person like me not to call them a hypocrite.

You either have to accept a few axioms which limit the number of things that are possible to exist, or call yourself a Solipsist (a hidden option #3 is available that I may not have hit upon).

 

[agnostictheist]

Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist. Such as in the example of square circles on a 2D plane, an object can be both square and circular at the same time, so square circles do not exist.

My thoughts are not all logical thus they don't exist?

What about a circle that has infinite radus? the opposite can in some cases, in an infinity be unfiyed (Cursa)

Personally, I'm one who believes all things which exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. Seeing as how god(s) cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, that pragmatically puts the odds about 0%.

But hightly restrictive..maybe needless so, SOMETHIMES.

In your context, I don't think its fair to call anyone close-minded. Do you deny the existence of Shiva, one of 330 million Hindu gods? If you accept that one thing (aside from the "self") is possible, you must accept that all things are possible (however that is self-contradictory).

Essentially, if one accepts the existence of one thing, yet denies the existence of others which are equally possible, while claiming those who don't believe such-and-such are closeminded, they would be making it very hard for a person like me not to call them a hypocrite.

unless the reasons and arguments differ! so greatly that there natures should not be compared, eg MOST hindus tend to be pantheists, bit different to a yahweh God! (some hindus are theists or sorts)

on the other hand, the essentially core meaning of pantheism, without shiva, many be also possible has a theistic one. but there is no harm in saying we are not privlaged (at the mo) to make a conclusive comment.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist. Such as in the example of square circles on a 2D plane, an object can be both square and circular at the same time, so square circles do not exist.

Whereas a circle can occur naturally, while a square (with its straight lines) is man-made.

However, if defined properly, god(s) is what you would call an "unrestricted negative". It virtually translates into "Nothing rational can be said to support belief or disbelief in god(s)".

Have you done any research at all in this area? Doesn't sound like it. There's lots of material available on this subject which would tend to suggest otherwise. Two predominant names which come to mind are Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung.

God(s) which is defined as having any kind of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. would be logically contradictory (assuming rational things can be defined about him).

As matter of fact, if He does exist, then He "must" be very pragmatic, indeed, and hence very logical. Which is to say, "His Creation" speaks for itself.

Hmm ... I wonder what Einstein could have possibly meant when he said, "God does not throw dice?"

About your "holistic" comment, I'll describe that along with the next quote...

Unless I don't understand correctly, you are not suggesting using scientific means to prove or disprove the existence of god(s), instead you are asking to use "holistic" or introspection (which is contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination). What you are suggesting sounds a lot like the Philosophy of Transcendentalism (which means existence of an ideal spiritual reality that transcends the empirical and scientific and is knowable through intuition or faith).

I'm saying human introspection is the most likely place to start. But then again, if God does exist, then it should all add up no matter where you look. Albeit I think it would be essential to establish a good point of reference.

And yes, I do believe in the transcendance of one realm over the other. The best analogy I can give here is to that of a caterpillar, which spins its cocoon and goes through a metamorphysis, by which it transcends its "earthly nature" and becomes a butterfly (hence spiritual). These are my thoughts on "the afterlife" anyway.

However, with that reasoning, you have essentially dug yourself into a foxhole.

If one's own faith (or inner convictions/introspection) say "my god(s) exists", and another has just as much faith that leads him to believes that its his god(s) (or no gods) exist, then using introspective reasoning has failed. It accomplishes nothing.

Yes, there is only one sun in the sky (with respect to monotheism), and yet each one of us relates to that sun a bit differently, in which case we can say there are just as many suns -- "subjectively," that is -- as there are people.

Depends on which set of axioms you accept.

Personally, I'm one who believes all things which exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. Seeing as how god(s) cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, that pragmatically puts the odds about 0%.

And yet, if you happened to have first hand knowledge, and actually "know" (and I don't mean by faith alone), then that would put it at about 100% don't you think? Or, does that just make you another crackpot?

Back to the talk about Unrestricted Negatives...

Why shouldn't I assume there are many gods which exist? Why shouldn't I assume the Christian God exists, but at the same time there is an unknown God which exists more supreme, but the Christian God doesn't know about.

There is only one sun in the sky (the Father) and only one Earth which we inhabit (the Mother).

In your context, I don't think its fair to call anyone close-minded. Do you deny the existence of Shiva, one of 330 million Hindu gods? If you accept that one thing (aside from the "self") is possible, you must accept that all things are possible (however that is self-contradictory).

Indeed, if God does exist, then we're speaking of the most fundamental thing that there is to existence. So why can't science which, is nothing but the study of the fundamentals of existence, ascertain it? Hmm ... Sounds to me like somebody must have missed the boat somewhere?

Of course if we could just learn to set our big fat egos aside, and understand that indeed, the answer might very well be under our noses, then yes, an answer should be forthcoming.

I have no problem accepting Shiva as a deity by the way.

Essentially, if one accepts the existence of one thing, yet denies the existence of others which are equally possible, while claiming those who don't believe such-and-such are closeminded, they would be making it very hard for a person like me not to call them a hypocrite.

I would really recommend you get ahold of Joseph Campbell's book, The Power of Myth, that is if you want to understand how all these things can be interelated and still be one and the same. It was orginally a PBS television series and is now available on DVD for about $45 (your best bet).

You either have to accept a few axioms which limit the number of things that are possible to exist, or call yourself a Solipsist (a hidden option #3 is available that I may not have hit upon).

If I can establish that 1 + 1 = 2 in my own mind, then why can't I also establish -- using the same "capacity to reason" -- whether or not God exists?

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
--------------------------------------------------
Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist. Such as in the example of square circles on a 2D plane, an object can be both square and circular at the same time, so square circles do not exist.
--------------------------------------------------
My thoughts are not all logical thus they don't exist?

You are inadvertantly taking what I said out of its context.

What you are doing is setting up a semantics-based refutation regarding the meaning of the word "logical".

In my context, I was using logical regarding "the nature of logic", you were using logical regarding "what is sensible or coherent". That is where the semantics come in at, and that is why your question is invalid.

What about a circle that has infinite radus? the opposite can in some cases, in an infinity be unfiyed (Cursa)

A circle with an infinite radius?

For your example, there is no such thing as "infinite radius" because 1 unit can always be added to it. And 1 unit added to that, and another unit added to that... you could go on for quite a while... but to suggest "Infinite radius" would be internally contradictory. So there are no such things as circles with an infinite radius.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

--------------------------------------------------
However, if defined properly, god(s) is what you would call an "unrestricted negative". It virtually translates into "Nothing rational can be said to support belief or disbelief in god(s)".
--------------------------------------------------

Have you done any research at all in this area? Doesn't sound like it. There's lots of material available on this subject which would tend to suggest otherwise. Two predominant names which come to mind are Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung.

I've done research like you wouldn't believe... its a hobby really ...

Example of a statement that would yield an Unrestricted Negative: Religious beliefs do not have to be rational.

Example of a deity defined which is an unrestricted negative:
I'll create my own uberdeity. My deity is mighty and supreme, omniscient, omnipotent (exists beyond Material description, but can't do the logically contradictory such as making a rock so big he couldn't lift it, or doing the logically impossible such as making 1 apple + 1 apple = 72 apples). My deity is not omnibenevolent (it doesn't need to be). My deity is defined (in one facet) as "exists where anything exists. Where my deity doesn't exist, nothing can exist, therefore my deity is omnipresent". Nothing can exist more supreme or powerfule than my deity. By definition, my deity has to exist. There are no other deities that exist except my own.

By the way I defined my deity, it has to exist (that little bit about the omnipresence is important... If my deity decided to pull away from the place where my house is at, I would cease existing).

It is quite difficult to disprove the existence of my deity. But seeing as how I do not believe in it, I know that there are definitely some peculiarities that one my question its existence.

--------------------------------------------------
God(s) which is defined as having any kind of omniscience, omnipotence, etc. would be logically contradictory (assuming rational things can be defined about him).
--------------------------------------------------

As matter of fact, if He does exist, then He "must" be very pragmatic, indeed, and hence very logical. Which is to say, "His Creation" speaks for itself.

Hmm ... I wonder what Einstein could have possibly meant when he said, "God does not throw dice?"

I believe Einstein's statement is very much taken out of context (in the same way that assuming anyone who used the phrase "Oh my god" actually believes in a god would be taking the phrase out of context). The quote is metaphorical in reference to common misinterpretation of Quantum Theory.

Einstein's "spiritual" philosophy was very close to that of Buddhism.

Here is an exerpt from Einstein and "God does not play dice":

Einstein did once comment that "God does not play dice [with the universe]". This quotation is commonly mentioned to show that Einstein believed in the Christian God. Used this way, it is out of context; it refers to Einstein's refusal to accept some aspects of the most popular interpretations of quantum theory. Furthermore, Einstein's religious background was Jewish rather than Christian.

...

A longer quote from Einstein appears in "Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. In it he says:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted [italics his], in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...[/size]

Einstein has also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[/size]

The above quote is from a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press. Also from the same book:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.[/size]

More of Einstein's comments on religion are available on the web at <URL:http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/ESR.html >. Of course, the fact that Einstein chose not to believe in Christianity does not in itself imply that Christianity is false.

--------- To Be Continued Into Next Post ---------->

 

[Yahweh]

Continued from last response

------- Continued from last post ---------->

I'm saying human introspection is the most likely place to start. But then again, if God does exist, then it should all add up no matter where you look. Albeit I think it would be essential to establish a good point of reference.

I don't believe Human Introspection is a good place to start because, obviously, the vast majority of humans all have different convictions of the existence of god(s) much less its general concept (i.e. Benevolent, Malevolent, Creator, etc. etc. etc.). Thus, Introspection fails.

Where Introspection has failed, seeing the world around humans yields nothing. Not a single thing on the planet or in the universe exists that would even insinuate "Hey guys, I'm here... It's me, God...".

And where the evidence fails, even Epistemology takes you nowhere regarding the existence of a god. Even shoddy shoddy Ontology takes you nowhere in the existence of a god.

I believe it was http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore who this point very clear:
People rarely believe things on a basis of the evidence presented to them, instead its their inner convictions which govern their beliefs.

Where the evidence says "No Gods Here", people believe simply because they are, as you would put it, close-minded.

And yes, I do believe in the transcendance of one realm over the other. The best analogy I can give here is to that of a caterpillar, which spins its cocoon and goes through a metamorphysis, by which it transcends its "earthly nature" and becomes a butterfly (hence spiritual). These are my thoughts on "the afterlife" anyway.

Unfortunately, your caterpillar analogy is flawed. Caterpillars are of an "Earthly nature", butterflies (which are adult caterpillars) are also of "Earthy nature", no such transcendence occurred.

My thoughts on the afterlife tend to spin like this:

No afterlife.

--------------------------------------------------
Depends on which set of axioms you accept.

Personally, I'm one who believes all things which exist and occur can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. Seeing as how god(s) cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, that pragmatically puts the odds about 0%.
--------------------------------------------------

And yet, if you happened to have first hand knowledge, and actually "know" (and I don't mean by faith alone), then that would put it at about 100% don't you think? Or, does that just make you another crackpot?

Yep, I do have first-hand knowledge, I summarized the nature of reality (unless of course I dont live within reality...). The information is not by faith alone, it is in fact demonstratably true in any environment (provided you don't misinterpret or misrepresent the information). That still puts the existence of God(s) at 0%.

--------------------------------------------------
Essentially, if one accepts the existence of one thing, yet denies the existence of others which are equally possible, while claiming those who don't believe such-and-such are closeminded, they would be making it very hard for a person like me not to call them a hypocrite.
--------------------------------------------------

Indeed, if God does exist, then we're speaking of the most fundamental thing that there is to existence. So why can't science which, is nothing but the study of the fundamentals of existence, ascertain it? Hmm ... Sounds to me like somebody must have missed the boat somewhere?

Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

Of course if we could just learn to set our big fat egos aside, and understand that indeed, the answer might very well be under our noses, then yes, an answer should be forthcoming.

Yep, the answer is in fact under our noses: No god(s).

"I've known some intelligent people who whole-hearted believe in God, but I have yet to meet a fool who didnt" -- Unknown.

That quote is significant in that it demonstrates a couple of different aspects to inner conviction.

If I can establish that 1 + 1 = 2 in my own mind, then why can't I also establish -- using the same "capacity to reason" -- whether or not God exists?

1 + 1 = 2 is demonstratably true (this is not the true for deities). It can done in approximately 15 seconds: You take one apple, you have one apple. You put another apple next to it, together you have 2 apples.

The "capacity to reason" between math with apples and the existence of deities are nonanalogous.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I believe Einstein's statement is very much taken out of context (in the same way that assuming anyone who used the phrase "Oh my god" actually believes in a god would be taking the phrase out of context). The quote is metaphorical in reference to common misinterpretation of Quantum Theory.

Einstein's "spiritual" philosophy was very close to that of Buddhism.

Actually when I quoted Einstein, it had nothing to do with his religious convictions. I have already been through this once before.

Even so, by the very nature of what he said, it suggests that if a God does exist, He would have to be very practical indeed, and hence "logical."

Well I can see there's a lot to address here, but unfortunately I don't have the time. Perhaps later?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I've done research like you wouldn't believe... its a hobby really ...

What exactly is the point of your research? Have you pretty much concluded that God doesn't exist, and tend to focus on those areas which only corroborate this? It's obvious you and I vary greatly in our approach here.

Are you at all familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, both of whom are renowned for their work in the universal nature of myth and the psychologies derived therefrom? If not, then I would suggest you're not genuinely interested in finding the kind of evidence that might support the existence of God.

I've pretty much gathered that you're not "open" to the idea anyway.

Example of a statement that would yield an Unrestricted Negative: Religious beliefs do not have to be rational.

If something is "intrinsic" or real, what does that have to do with its being rational or not?

I don't believe Human Introspection is a good place to start because, obviously, the vast majority of humans all have different convictions of the existence of god(s) much less its general concept (i.e. Benevolent, Malevolent, Creator, etc. etc. etc.). Thus, Introspection fails.

And yet what other point of reference do we really have than ourselves? And what about consciousness, the very "portal" to our existense? For without it, indeed, there would be no need for science nor, would there be any need to recognize God.

Yep, I do have first-hand knowledge, I summarized the nature of reality (unless of course I dont live within reality...). The information is not by faith alone, it is in fact demonstratably true in any environment (provided you don't misinterpret or misrepresent the information). That still puts the existence of God(s) at 0%.

Either way you look at it, you're not going to solve anything by taking a poll, except perhaps in some people's minds.

Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

But it would indeed be ironic if God did exist now wouldn't it?

Yep, the answer is in fact under our noses ...

Well, at least we can agree upon this much.

1 + 1 = 2 is demonstratably true (this is not the true for deities). It can done in approximately 15 seconds: You take one apple, you have one apple. You put another apple next to it, together you have 2 apples.

And yet there's quite a vast difference between 1 + 1 = 2 and E = MC2 now isn't there?

The "capacity to reason" between math with apples and the existence of deities are nonanalogous.

If God exists, then why can't it can be "reasoned out?" ... And why is math progressive?

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What exactly is the point of your research? Have you pretty much concluded that God doesn't exist, and tend to focus on those areas which only corroborate this? It's obvious you and I vary greatly in our approach here.

The point of my research? Well, I am an active member of the Skeptic Community (see signature), I encourage critical thinking.

Other skeptics (including those from the JREF boards) are PhDs in Physics, medical doctors, lawyers, parents, teachers, professors, and your good ol' fashioned average Joes. My primary expertise is Philosophy and Logic. I do my research encourage intellectual progression, and also to prevent people from falling to scams, pseudoscience, Psychics.

There is a messageboard called RaptureReady (http://www.rr-bb.com). Those people (not all of them) are very much into religous. However, they've taken their belief to a pathological level. I believe one of the more recent things I've read from there was something along the lines of "I don't think you go to Hell if you commit suicide as long as you have faith in Christ". While I don't fear a mass suicide, I would certainly discourage against saying things like that. Those kids have a completely insane (and bigoted) view of the world around them, and they encourage each other in ways that are as follows "So your husband is beating you... well stick with him and pray harder, the bible doesn't look to kindly on divorce, and it tells you to submit unto your husband so you don't have much of a choice". That is the kind of mentality that I would like to see ended.

Although my understanding of Physics is calibrated as "superior" by various organizations in relation to the people around me, I came to PhysicsForums for the intellectual atmosphere and to brush up on my Physics... it might help a little if I explored the non-Philosophy forums...

Why would I spend my time doing the research? Well, I paste an excerpt from something another member of the JREF forums had written, it gets the point across fairly well...

Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral. There are plenty of great thinkers who have argued that there is intrinsic evil in false beliefs. Regardless of whether such beliefs result in comfort or a sense of well-being, it is far more important and ethical for a person to have an understanding of reality.

...

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself. There is no shortage of authority that lying to oneself is morally repugant. Shakespeare may have summed it up best with his pithy "to thine own self be true," but he was neither the first nor the last to express the sentiment. This is hardly a weak or losing point.

Turning back to the question of religion now, it is not true as a general matter that all religions are known to be false (although some are). As a general matter, assering the moral superiority of being true to oneself does not necessarily degrade religion. Moreover, many religions (including some flavors of Christianity) agree that it is extremely important to be honest to oneself. Even if one has a great deal "invested" in a belief, one should not persist in the false belief merely to "protect the investment."

...

Not all religions hold "false views of reality." Deism, for example, is a religion rooted in reality. Even some versions of Christianity insist upon an honest recognition of the real world. One Christian writer, for example, once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that we can be certain that any interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistent with science is a wrong interpretation. Other Christian writers adamantly disagree with this sentiment, of course; but it would not be fair to say that all Christians are divorced from reality merely because some are.

I don't feel I need much to address the rest of the post, for some reason I think it would be in my proper place of me to do so.

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

But it would indeed be ironic if God did exist now wouldn't it?

Why? As I see it:

• 1) God exists with a strong interaction with humans. - No evidence has been demonstrated for this position.
  
  2) God exists, doesn't interact with humans much
  
  2a) and he expects humans to follow a lot of arbitrary rules, including believing in him.
  
  2aa) and will punish us for not following those rules - This makes god out to be a unreasonable bastard. Something we are taught isn't so.
  
  2ab) and it doesn't matter if we follow those rules - kinda makes the rule illogical to begin with.
  
  2b) and he doesn't expect humans to follow arbitrary rules, only to be civil to each other - then belief in him is irrelavent.
  
  3) God doesn't exist - then belief in him is more than irrelavent, it is effort with no benefit [given there are spiritual pursuits with no need for belief in a diety].

I'm sure there are many things that exist, which I've never even considered existing, and some I'm seen no evidence of that do. I wouldn't find it ironic that I didn't believe in them, unless I'd ignored good evidence that they did exist.

 

[agnostictheist]

"You are inadvertantly taking what I said out of its context."

I will contest that, on the basis that you make some premise, but these premise could be easyly incomplete, for example you state a 2d plane? you say nothing about it "cuvature"... while that example itself might not came to any harm it aids me that that your premises are never going to be fully adequte, to assume they are MIGTH make you fall into the same trap dear Euclid once did.

the point was not that I am out of context but rather your premise needed to have a few more "air-tight" axioms.


"What you are doing is setting up a semantics-based refutation regarding the meaning of the word "logical"."

then it is your job to make clear what you meant by it - which I will welcome.(or added)

...


"In my context, I was using logical regarding "the nature of logic", you were using logical regarding "what is sensible or coherent".

No i was not, if i did i would have said logical consistancy!

"That is where the semantics come in at, and that is why your question is invalid."

o dear, when you said : Well, I always thought the easiest way to disprove the existence of something was to show how it logically couldn't exist.

and I proposed that My thoughts are not logical, thus my thoughts don't exist (if we assumed (axiom) that the world is logical)

semantices is VERY important in logical arguments and this is no exception... While you in your statement did not say or probably meant the axiom, I am highligting the fact that its not so easy to or the easiest "disprove" something based on logical consistance IF the universe is not logical - mathamtical YES but we know that logic and maths are not the same.

in fact disprove, exists... all of which can have silighty different meanings in logical, and "reality". in which context do you refer to "disprove" - and yes I notice you put them in qoutation.

"For your example, there is no such thing as "infinite radius" because 1 unit can always be added to it. And 1 unit added to that, and another unit added to that... you could go on for quite a while... but to suggest "Infinite radius" would be internally contradictory. So there are no such things as circles with an infinite radius."

thats an potental infinity, not an actual infinity, the example you give may ONLY fit for potental infinity.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed. You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence, however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise - a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)

I do not believe God(s) exists or that it is fundamental to existence. For that reason, science won't ever be able to ascertain its existence.

Yes, until you actually "know" or, have had first hand experience, it can only be presented in a hypothetical sense. In which case what may be hypothetical to you, may not be hypothetical to me. Even so, in order for me to present it in a way for you to evaluate it (compare it against what you already know), I have to present it in the hypothetical sense. Which by no means implies that it's hypothetical to me and, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about. Or, I would have you consider that possiblity.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's consider I do have a means of ascertaining whether this is true or not (I and many others in fact). Now where does that leave science? Or, if not science, then where does that leave you?

 

[agnostictheist]

Sorry Yarwey, but your statement is wrong:

You say:

“Your assumption of a hypothetical deity is where your reasoning is flawed.”

No its not, the reasoning itself is not flawed, (nesscerly) the reason can still be sound despite a premise being even false, the conclusion however can result in an invalid one.

I hope you realize that deductive reasons can be quite wrong – yet the reasoning itself is not flawed!

It would be better to say, what I saying in response to the following:

“ You suggest something is wrong with science because it cannot ascertain fundamental existence,”

I know this is in response to someone else, but I think I am going to agree with you here, simply because science can not ascertain fundamental existence is no reason to thus declare God has the default answer, while the premise of Gods existence maybe “true”, so equally may the premise of Gods non-existence. You thus went onto say..

“however your fundamental existence is derived from a hypothetical deity. (The flaw is that your premise”

Good now swap the “reasoning is flawed” with that of premise – quite right too!


“- a hypothetical deity exists - is not known). Does that make sense? (It might be a little hard to follow...)”

what is “Known”?