Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy

I am well ware of the problem of evil and its philosophical context

https://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pd

It is irrelevant to this debate

(and i don't understand the context or meaning of your response, to your position as an atheist/agnostic.)

What you take from logic and philosophy depends on your prior constructions of belief/disbelief

"There is no other way to construct a position of atheism or theism than BY belief, unless you have knowledge" (MW).

This is your claim.

My counter claim is "The Problem of Evil" is an atheistic argument against the existence of God taught in Philosophy.

I included Aquinas's Five Ways as it one of the theist arguments for gods existence. Also taught in Philosophy.

Therefore, your claim doesn't hold.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservap...sts_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

That's cute. Got anything else to back your claim? If your in a foxhole and have time to pray, you've got time to shoot someone. Only cowards pray in the foxhole. That what my world war 2 vet grandfather told me. May he rest in peace.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Quite correct and i would do that if i was intending a insult I use this term for my wife quite safely and i would never insult her with intent to harm.

And i made my intent clear in my explanation Think what you like, you pusillanimous, pulchritudinous, pastiche of pastifarian propensities

Talk talk talk, it's only talk

Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy . chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat, conversation, contradiction, criticism ....

It's only talk

- Cheap talk

Talk, talk, talk ... it's only talk

Debates, discussions ( these are words with a D this time ) , dialogue, dualogue, diatribe, dissention, declamation, double talk double talk ....

Talk, talk, it's all talk ... Too much talk ... Small talk ... Talk that trash .

Expressions, editorials, expugnations, exclamations, enfadulations ...

It's all talk

Elephant talk ..... elephant talk .... elephant talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV7GexI7S0Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservap...sts_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

Uh................ I have some links here to prove you wrong. ( and it looks like there are a lot of posters here that have the tenable position of being Atheists, so it can, is, will always happen.

So, lets look at the link here, ( I believe it's the site mentioned in your link) that shows plenty of Atheists in the military.

http://militaryathei...ts-in-foxholes/

By the way, speaking of your link, I find it comes from a source that would be a form of bias, considering it's from a conservative point of view. I would think the same way, if it's worded and linked as a liberal type of site, and would be a form of bias too.

Is it me, or does your link seem to come to a conclusion by suggestiveness and conjecture?

I also don't believe that the result of Atheist U.S.S.R. being defeated, was not a conclusion of there not being Atheist in foxholes. Considering that there seemed to be, from my point of view at least, a great deal of religious individuals in the country to begin with.

Here's a wonderful link of someone who just so happened to be an Atheist in a foxhole.

http://americanhuman...st_in_a_Foxhole

and this:

https://ffrf.org/out...sts-in-foxholes

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Not clever. It was too easy to be clever.

And yes i got your point of ridicule (as expected from you by now ) BUT that is no reason to post without referencing the author. it remains technically illegal, and ethically wrong, and against forum rules . And one can never be SURE what your intent was because you did NOT source it.

Oh dear ! The source had noting to do with the intention. Okay I will explain it clearly here since you insist , and since you claim you know what is going on, you must be speaking up for some hypothetical reader , so for them ;

Many people find Walker raves on and on and on in long posts of self justification, self praise and self (admitted) arrogance. I copied that post and stuck it up as an imitation 'joke Waker post' . I copied it as I certainly want going to bother, like he does, to write it all out. In case anyone missed the context, is was a follow on from a comment about Walker minutely examining a one word meaning to be critical of what someone wrote and in his role as a 'correctional officer' (self appointed ) .

Since it was a mock post, and I was imitating him, putting a source or quote on it would be pointless . smiley-rolleyes007.gif

While i believe you did not intend a reader to think it was your own work, another reader could legitimately come to precisely that conclusion because you have made no effort to attribute authorship. .

Look, authorship has nothing to do with it , I was .... ahhh , doesnt matter, no matter how much you say you 'get it ' ... you rally dont .

I am precisely correct here, and its fun to watch you try to "wiggle" and " segway' your way out of it.

Precisely correct .... but abou totally the wrong thing :D

C'mon! Just admit you were wrong not to attribute authorship in using another's writing in order to make a point.

Nope.

Oh and i did not quote any rules at you. I posed you a question, for YOU to answer

Dear me. Haven't you broken the rules of the forum and of convention?

Nope .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservap...sts_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

You must be speaking about why you are not an athesiest then , 'got God' in a foxhole did you ? because, of course, no way toy can speak for how others handle their issues in life.

Intersing theory if you trying to say this relates to others .... I had no idea atheists never had to meet challengs ( if they did , it would have already dissolved, according to you ... into thin air .... just like that ! )

Shall we ask them about that ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I find that very honest of you to say. :) I would also think, that spiritual is also a kin to personal too, hence why it's something that cannot be viewed on an objective level, I guess.

That is why I find things so confusing, people talk as if a common experience, but to my understanding, that cannot be the case can it?

If I look at it on another pov, I would think of spiritual as simple, not material or something that shows material evidence. I personally think, what you went through with the birth of your children, is probably close to this explanation if any. I maybe saying this, for I too have the same experience as you do, in having children, and I emphasis this from when I had my children. And yes, there is something deep down in the gut, the unlimited section of a person, that experiences this, but there is no evidence to show it actually happened. Only to the one who experiences it.

Would that not simply be exaggerated emotions based on personal connections to certain things? Is this maybe why people claim to have spiritual experiences that lead them to God, when some luck has fallen their way and they do not know how else to explain it?

I catalogued my experiences as "spiritual" as they did sound like what other people describe as "spiritual" but it seems too strong a word for what is actually happening?

I have come to 'see' another side of living in my body, not just what is there and in front of me, or what is felt inside of me, that would show evidences, ( biology wise ), but a non-material, unlimited, non-seeing, but 'felt' in a different sense so to speak. The best I can explain it, is that we may have our usual senses, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and there is the organ to get that, but actually sensing through your 'soul' or 'feelings' or 'persona', and that has not evidences to those aspects to show any evidence of that particular 'sense'.

Is that what I would call "character"? What makes a person, why they see thing a certain way, why two people can read the same thing and come up with different conclusions, why the outdoors appeal to some and not others, why some are bold and some are meek, which is all based on culture when scrutinised?

I wouldn't say anyone is less of something for that, or someone else is more..................... 'crazy', because of it either. I just think we are all different and have our 'gifts' and point of views to have our own personal experiences and outlooks.

Perhaps not, but there is one in every crowd ;)

Some people do seem to take things too far, and claim ridiculous things from a "spiritual world" and describe it as if an alternative Universe, then they hear about people hypothesising alternative Universes and think they have an answer, when they do not understand alternative Universes at all - or the theory behind them I should say.

I feel Mankind has had relgion forced upon us all as one person's original view that seemed like a good idea, and was made popular for belief by way of offering rewards - the afterlife, virgins, reincarnation, etc etc.

I really hope that has some understanding here. If not, give me another cup of coffee. :w00t:

But to go back my questioning my time of Atheism, I wonder if I really was. It gets confusing, I guess.

I am still here so far........ :D

It sounds like you walked the line, and perhaps still do to a point. What you have done from what I see is be honest to yourself and ask the questions that need asking, I think that the most helpful answers though have only become prevalent to the public within the last couple of decades. And that greater understanding has come from Atheism, and allowing for other things to allow the Universe to exist as opposed to the original ideal of an omnipotent creator - which really makes no sense whatsoever when we break that story down too. Why would a God create a Universe, and then bother only about the humans on this planet? Why would God create a Wasp that immobilizes prey so it's young can eat it alive? The harsh reality of life itself deposes the ideal of God.

I once was religious, but struggle to see why people would turn back, particularly is having read Hawking's, Greene's Dawkins and Krauss' works. To me that is the move from Phlogiston to Elements, I cannot see how an obviously flawed system that has been proven to be incorrect on so many occasions can still be taken seriously at all.

So would say you remained at "agnostic" as you remained in a position of "I just do not know" which is the most honest position, I just feel physics has well swung that balance of information to a tipping point.

I do think aptly put, just not aptly put in my head!!! It's enough that I have to be exposed to it on the level I am in my country.

Ack!

Is he as big a clown as he seems?

Trump_meme_neg009-780x514.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Lets be clear neither side has evidence. You cannot claim that because of the lack of evidence God doesn't exist, that is merely a belief. Just as you cannot say, I believe in God because he cannot be dis proven, that is also a belief.

Whatever you believe remember you do not know for 100% even me, yes I know I could be completely wrong but I thought it worth saying. We're in the same boat remember, we need that final nail in the coffin that says A) God exists or B) It's baloney.

That is not entirely true, I have objections to other points, but thought this the one that stood out most.

God has been proven to be a lie that did not happen, he did not "let there be light" It took a good 400,000 years before we had light, he did not make man, or the star, the stars made man, there was no great flood, we did not make females from a male's rib.

And when science proved all this - suddenly

It's a metaphor!!

No other source on earth would be tolerated as even partly accurate with the number of mistakes lies and embellishments the Bible makes, so what's the deal here? Why do people continue to believe? Indoctrination? There is no other answer but that man has forced this fairy tale upon others as a means of control.

I think that says a lot myself. Especially with the countering argument of "just have faith"

Bah humbug.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Though how could you even provide evidence of such a thing? The fact is no one knows and for someone to claim a "god" dosent exist is ignorant in my mind. While on the other side to say one does as fact, is just as foolish. I believe there should be some form of middle gound in between the two. Something had to start this all. While im positive it is some scientifical process , the fact is that know one knows what started that scientifical process in the first place. Though what if the universe is a just a human construct of the mind and each individuals universe expands to there respective knowledge of it.

That is plain ridiculous, there cannot be a middle ground as the conclusions are anything but compatible.

There IS evidence supporting a Universe from nothing, there is NO evidence for the Supernatural.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

It's both. Humans will be granted new, incorruptible spirit bodies, and the earth will be no more, replaced by new heavens and a new earth. If man was exactly the same in heaven then we'd be sinners in heaven, and we'd be right where we are now - separated from God by the evil of sin. We MUST have new bodies and new minds that are incapable of sin, if we are to spend eternity with God.

The obvious questions seems to be

Why bother with this mess? Why not go straight to incorruptible bodies and save the pain and hardship?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

To compare a god to unicorns is even more ignorant.

It is a deliberately ignorant to refuse the obvious comparison here - how about you demonstrate how God is more real than Unicorns? As far as I know the same proof exists for both. None, just imagination.

You give no signifigance tof the human consciousness.

I do believe that is what you are doing here - accepting blindly and urging others to do so as well. Human consciousness gave us the intelligence to ask questions, you only let yourself down when you refuse the advanced knowledge that science has imparted with us and do not ask those questions.

what if it is a cycle and one day the human conscious evolves through technology into a god like state where it could see the past present and future?

And what if horses were carnivores and pigs flew?

I would then let Hawking know what happened to the time traveler's he invited to his party!

And what led you to this ideal? You do realise science is based upon real world findings which lead to further findings, but I have a feeling that is not where this little gem of information is coming from is it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The main theory I hear from atheists is that we are biological robots, living meaningless lives in a Universe that sprangs from 'nothing'.

Not sure that's a very convincing answer, IMO.

You like answers that appeal to you, not ones with evidence then I take it?

I have to say, that is not very convincing either!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Fry is a man looking to blame anything for the ills and evils of our world.

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if you have ... and the Son of God, who has created and upholds all things by the word of his ..

Anyone who looks at the creation and denies a Creator is just kidding themselves. They also worship a god - but science is an ever changing deity. The great arrogance and misunderstanding of those who do not believe is that they assume they actually UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING about existence. Those who admit that they have no clue and choose not to believe in a God - I respect that. Those who look down the nose at people of faith and consider them fools are a type that is just not very likable. No one really can prove any of it to the satisfaction of those who disbelieve - unless the disbeliever is drawn by the Spirit. The day they stand before the Creator and say - "you didn't provide enough evidence" I suspect they will be shown they were greatly in error.

You are an excellent poster, and I like your contributions a great deal, I struggle though to see how you find that a creator is inevitable. I honestly do. I savour the beauty of nature, and am close to it, as most who grew up rurally are. I see how they came together, and why the sky has the colours it does, nature I find more than enough without any need for a God, it is in fact to my mind so impressive that it inspired a God as minds could not even comprehend the greatness of this planet without such.

Now we can.

That is where we are now.

As Frank mentioned once, I wonder more about people who would show up for a God, and then demand their dues for a good obedient lifestyle. I honestly wonder how that would go down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

If Scripture is God's word, then it says that God is a spirit, no physicality as we understand it. Our senses were not (dare I say) designed to see the spiritual realm, nor do I believe it can be directly tested by the scientific method. So that still makes it a matter of faith and some will believe and others will not. Those who believe say we get glimpses of God through His creation and through direct revelation. Others see only a chemical/mechanical world run strictly on physical laws. It's a debate that will likely not be settled in this life.

So some believe it exists because some book that has been outright proven to be heavily factually flawed says so?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1451624468

Afterword by Richard Dawkins who compares it to On The Origin Of Species by Charles Darwin.

I gather this book and it's conveyed concepts are very popular in the New Atheism camp.

Awesome book I bought it when it was released I urge people to read it. Then you would understand both sides of the argument, and why Atheists are atheists and what Atheism actually is.

It also well explains how "nothing" is not empty.

I do feel Dawkins may have embellished when comparing it to Darwin's groundbreaking work. I think it would take something that allows GR and QM to co-exist for something that groundbreaking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservapedia.com/There_Are_No_Atheists_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

When I was 18 I was in a position that I was going to die. I thought "This is a stupid way to die".

That's it. I did not revert to ignorant superstition.

tumblr_m63spk6Tkb1rufb01o1_500.png

Edited by davros of skaro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

If there is no Intelligence behind the Universe than what's the alternative? A quantum fluke devoid of any purpose?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but.......

The Universe does not care if you or I exist. It goes on regardless, if the entire earth was obliterated in a few minutes time, the Universe would not care one bit. It is bigger than everyone on the planet.

If you find that pointless, I would blame your ego for that. I find it a privilege to be here and understand what is happening around me, and be able to pass that on. It is just a shame that one day, all that knowledge will be lost.

But what an existence!!!!!!! I'm excited!!

Excited.jpeg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Here's an excerpt from the Book description you linked to:

"Haisch proposes that science will explain God and God will explain science. Consciousness is not a mere epiphenomenon of the brain; it is our connection to God, the source of all consciousness. Ultimately it is consciousness that creates matter and not vice versa."

I do not see things popping into existence on top of the Kaaba in Mecca which is the focal point of billions of Muslims five times a day.

giphy.gif

See anything teleporting on top of that dunce box? Nope, nothing, nadda.

LOL, do not suspect anyone has mentioned the Higgs Boson to him??

Haisch is a wannabe who spent years at JSE attempting to gain credibility, which is hard to hold onto when you promote UFO's as aliens spaceships - which he does. I find his work laughable in general. Anyone who fears skepticism is not on the level I feel. If one has real evidence, that cannot be denied, I do not think Haisch has all that much respect for real evidence.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

There is this assumption that all people who believe in a supreme intelligence wouldn't change their mind, given sufficient evidence that it cannot be. Wrong. I choose to believe in a purpose-guided Universe because it makes sense. I am aware that there are other theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe but might also remain unprovable. And they explain absolutely nothing about why there should be a Multiverse or quantum laws in the first place.

You REALLY should read that book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

But no to your second statement Atheism is the active disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. An agnostic would have an open mind on the existence of gods and that they might be discovered or proven to exist. However an atheist, by definition, has an active belief that no gods exist, and thus can never be discovered or encountered. Atheism is not about the worship of, but the very existence of, gods. An atheist would say the existence of gods is impossible, that they have never existed, do not exist now, and never will be shown to exist; all based on belief that this is so.

WOW

You STILL do not understand atheism after all this time?????

There is just no reason to believe in a God, so why bother with it? There is no reason to expect the Supernatural to suddenly exist, if that changes, then all would change, just like elements changes Phlogiston. You do not seem to accept the many flaws that Religion has been proven to spout, which undermines your religious argument. Science "see's things coming" We went looking for the Higgs because logically it must exist. Evidence for the supernatural only grows in the negative as the wild claims are deconstructed and rationalised. Claims in the Bible - proven to be lies. What other publication so full of flaws would still gather so much support? None. That is indoctrination at work.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

And as you will hear time and again, that is complete nonsense. Your personal ideal, nothing more.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservap...sts_In_Foxholes

Do you not read your own links? The source refers to this:

LINK - Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships

That claim was JUST like relgion, made up rubbish that some people WANT to believe. And disproven.

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

What a load of absolute garbage, this information is linked to your rear end I take it? Darwin dies an Atheist, the death of his Daughter contributed to his Atheism. The weak minded look for the easy out, and faith is easy. Learning is hard.

Gosh is is even somewhat amusing as to what you religious devouts convince yourselves of!!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

"There is no other way to construct a position of atheism or theism than BY belief, unless you have knowledge" (MW).

This is your claim.

My counter claim is "The Problem of Evil" is an atheistic argument against the existence of God taught in Philosophy.

I included Aquinas's Five Ways as it one of the theist arguments for gods existence. Also taught in Philosophy.

Therefore, your claim doesn't hold.

Yes i included an article on tha t problem with my post

It is a belief based argument /construct As are all philosophical /logical premises tenets etc.

I. There exist instances of intense sulffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have been prevented without some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

3. 'There . does not exist an omnipotent omniscient, wholly good being

Reading this you will notice many underlying belief statements inherent in it

Eg that a good being woud want to end suffering ( a belief that suffering is a bad or unnecessary evil with no redeeming quality, which should be ended).

That such a being COULD simply prevent suffering This is a mjor belief construct defining the nature f the god(s) constructed.

The most telling belief here is tha t a god must be omnipotent or omniscient. Thiis is simply a belief construct. A god does not have to be either to qualify as a god and most human gods never have been.

Hence this philosophical position is flawed by two inherent weaknesses. It presupposes the nature and intent of a good god (and indeed tries to strictly define good as wanting to end suffering) and it narrowly limits the nature of the gods which are caught in this dichotomy

But ALSO it gives an important escape clause

without some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse

unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

A GOD might be able to identify a greeter harm which would be caused by preventing all suffering, and thus permit suffering to achieve this greater good.

So really the existence of suffering only philosophically negates the existence of one particular type of god, and even then only if you assume god cannot be restricted by conflicting outcomes, preventing it from ending one form of harm without causing another The classic example of this is that such a god could end human suffering by ending human free will.

But that would be a greater/more destructive form of harm to a self aware being, capable of choosing good and evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

double post

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

That is not entirely true, I have objections to other points, but thought this the one that stood out most.

God has been proven to be a lie that did not happen, he did not "let there be light" It took a good 400,000 years before we had light, he did not make man, or the star, the stars made man, there was no great flood, we did not make females from a male's rib.

And when science proved all this - suddenly

It's a metaphor!!

No other source on earth would be tolerated as even partly accurate with the number of mistakes lies and embellishments the Bible makes, so what's the deal here? Why do people continue to believe? Indoctrination? There is no other answer but that man has forced this fairy tale upon others as a means of control.

I think that says a lot myself. Especially with the countering argument of "just have faith"

Bah humbug.

i am 10 foot tall.

Woops no iam not but i do exist .

A falsehood about me is irrelvant to my existence .

I Am a psychopathic egomaniac . Woops no I am not, but i exist.

The fact that humans misunderstand and misinterpret things they have no way of understanding doesn't mean they don't exist

Humans believe because of the evolved characteristic of the human brain, which basically from birth uses beliefs to make sense of an environment it does not comprehend.

All the anthropological and sociological evidence is that if you bring childen up in a god free environment they will simply create personal individualised god beliefs from observation and logic as they struggle to make sense of their environment without experience or knowledge. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

The obvious questions seems to be

Why bother with this mess? Why not go straight to incorruptible bodies and save the pain and hardship?

Because given free will humans must CHOOSE a life without causing harm or pain or suffering This life shows us the consequences of human frailty and evil, and sorts out those capable of living a safe /good life in a place without natural perils. You can't become an adult without going through the difficult and painful learning process of childhood.

Unless free will is removed we have to LEARN how to live a wise, peaceful, cooperative, and peaceful life. Better to do it now in a short mortal trial than become immortal without learning the wisdom needed for safe living. Imagine a world of immortals as juvenile and immature as most adult humans are in this life Imagine a world like the one we live in today, going on forever .

(these are the theological and philosophical arguments and answers to your question.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.