If you were to debate in favour of a God?

daveyjoe

I've been watching a few debates between theists and atheists recently and I can't help thinking that the theists don't make a great show of themselves.

Generally you will hear the same 'sense of wonderment' C. S. Lewis style rhetoric from the theists. The atheist proponents will take a somewhat blakian stance to the 'wonderment' argument and steamroll ahead if the discussion turns scientific.

So, always being the one to play devil's advocate, my question is; if you were to debate in favour of a God, what would you base your argument on?

After a quick think, the most convincing argument that I could come up with is the fine tuning of the universal constants.

What argument would you find most convincing?

daveyjoe

daveyjoe wrote: »

I've been watching a few debates between theists and atheists recently and I can't help thinking that the theists don't make a great show of themselves.

Generally you will hear the same 'sense of wonderment' C. S. Lewis style rhetoric from the theists. The atheist proponents will take a somewhat blakian stance to the 'wonderment' argument and steamroll ahead if the discussion turns scientific.

So, always being the one to play devil's advocate, my question is; if you were to debate in favour of a God, what would you base your argument on?

After a quick think, the most convincing argument that I could come up with is the fine tuning of the universal constants.

What argument would you find most convincing?

What fine tuning?

daveyjoe

bluewolf wrote: »

What fine tuning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

JimiTime

daveyjoe wrote: »

I've been watching a few debates between theists and atheists recently and I can't help thinking that the theists don't make a great show of themselves.

Indeed. I'm a Christian myself, and usually cringe at the folk they have on speaking on behalf of Christianity. The bishop that was lambasting 'the life of brian' with Michael Palin and John Cleese springs to mind:o

daveyjoe

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed. I'm a Christian myself, and usually cringe at the folk they have on speaking on behalf of Christianity. The bishop that was lambasting 'the life of brian' with Michael Palin and John Cleese springs to mind:o

Indeed.
This question is not neccesarily only for atheists and agnositics by the way.

Feel free to comment on the question I raised, if you like.

karen3212

OP are you looking for an arguement in favour of one God to rule them all?

Scofflaw

daveyjoe wrote: »

I've been watching a few debates between theists and atheists recently and I can't help thinking that the theists don't make a great show of themselves.

Generally you will hear the same 'sense of wonderment' C. S. Lewis style rhetoric from the theists. The atheist proponents will take a somewhat blakian stance to the 'wonderment' argument and steamroll ahead if the discussion turns scientific.

So, always being the one to play devil's advocate, my question is; if you were to debate in favour of a God, what would you base your argument on?

After a quick think, the most convincing argument that I could come up with is the fine tuning of the universal constants.

What argument would you find most convincing?

That it is possible.

The fine-tuning argument was, I think, the first argument I remember dismissing myself, on the basis that if the universe, and Earth, were not capable of supporting us, we would not be here wondering how it came to be so fine-tuned - the argument generally known as the Anthropic Principle.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Robbiethe3rd

Yeah but the anthropic principle can be use for either argument, one could use it to say that there is no point arguing that the state of the universe indicates the presence of God as no matter what the state of the universe was, assuming something like us was here we would say that were it any different, we would not be here.

Hivemind187

Robbiethe3rd wrote: »

Yeah but the anthropic principle can be use for either argument, one could use it to say that there is no point arguing that the state of the universe indicates the presence of God as no matter what the state of the universe was, assuming something like us was here we would say that were it any different, we would not be here.

If we were here in a universe where the laws of physics suggest we shouldnt be, that gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces and electro magnetism werent present and we were, then that would indeed imply the existance of devine intervention. Essentially that our existance would be in contradiction to the way things would work in that universe.

The fact that it is entirely the opposite of that scenario suggests that we are not here by devine providence but by the interaction of a number of specific factors all of which are operating exactly as they should be according to the laws of physics.

If god existed, we would be seeing life etc evolving (or possibly being wished into existance) in parts of the universe where it physically should not be able to. The fact that we dont, and only in places where the requisite factors interact in the correct manner, to my mind, implies that the great beardy one does not.

If I were to debate in favor of a god I would probably have no choice but to resort to the same tactics as the creationist do: Thats not evidence, its a test of faith.

Dades

Are we talking about an interventionist god, or an Einsteinian type belief in one?

I can think of no argument in favour of the former, but the latter probably has some interesting ones if you knew enough about maths and physics (or at least more than your audience).

Son Goku

Dades is too beautiful to be an accident.

Dades

That's an argument unlikely to win a debate.

Son Goku

Dades wrote: »

That's an argument unlikely to win a debate.

You're just being modest. For your appearance is as if you were hewn from marble and chiselled to perfection by the Creator himself.

This post hereby concludes the thread's necessary quota of homoerotic off-topicness.

In terms of actually debating for God, I think an unusual quagmire is that the more logical your presentation the more cold and distant God comes across and hence sounds less like a God you'd want to believe in.

stevejazzx

Yeah the fine tune argument goes out the window when you realise how many planets and galaxies there are all experiencing slightly different reactions to what's in the universe around them. With litreally billions of planets and galxies, statistically it is no big leap to imagine some them strike exactly the right balance to support life - after all we're dealing with thousands of millions. Scientists are currently discovering more and more planets that might have the capacity or potential for supporting life. It would be extremely remarkable if earth was the only planet that had these constants finely tuned but this is alomst certainly not the case.
Other planets that contain water may support bacterial life or other complex organisms. Considering space exploration is only 50 or years old it is firmly believed that future generations are bound to discover planets fully capable of supporting life.

The best argument I can think of right now to support the idea of God as a divine creator non interventionist type, is begining. Scientifically there apperars no satisfactory answer to how matter came into being. There are some ideas based around how energy formed matter but then where did the energy come from? It's an infinite regress, the most likley answer is that we are simply not sufficiently advanced to answer such questions completely as of yet but theists like to argue that a being acting outside the laws of nture and physics is the only possible answer.

Heres an intersting q&a

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00441.htm

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99019.htm

Zombrex

TBH I would find it very hard to logically argue for the existence of God in a way that would convince a rational atheist, because I don't believe there are any rational arguments for the existence of God.

I could easily argue for the existence of God using the emotive "common sense" type arguments that theists seem to love, but I would simply end up re-affirming theist belief.

daveyjoe

Dades wrote: »

Are we talking about an interventionist god, or an Einsteinian type belief in one?

I can think of no argument in favour of the former, but the latter probably has some interesting ones if you knew enough about maths and physics (or at least more than your audience).

I'm talking about a creator. I'm not too interested in the idea of an omnipotent, interventionist god or any god that is claimed by a religion. I'm talking about deism not theism.

daveyjoe

stevejazzx wrote: »

With litreally billions of planets and galxies, statistically it is no big leap to imagine some them strike exactly the right balance to support life - after all we're dealing with thousands of millions.

I'm talking about universal constants here. These are constants that are common across all planets and galaxies. These are the constants which are responsible for the creation of matter itself.

Interestingly though, you could replace 'planets and galaxies' with 'universes'. Of course you then need to accept the theory of the multiverse.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Scientifically there apperars no satisfactory answer to how matter came into being.

Very true and the universal constants add weight to that argument.

There are some interesting points being made.

Zombrex

daveyjoe wrote: »

I'm talking about universal constants here. These are constants that are common across all planets and galaxies. These are the constants which are responsible for the creation of matter itself.

When it comes to the formation of life the issue is how someone views our own importance.

If someone says "Wow, it is amazing that these conditions are just right for life to emerge" the assumption is that the purpose was for life, as we know it, to emerge. From that base it is logical to assume that something made it like that.

Of course there is actually no particularly logical reason to believe that we, or life in general, is the purpose of the universe, beyond a some what inflated notion of our own self-importance.

The realisation that the universe doesn't exist for us, that we are simply an interesting consequence of the universe, I think is the first step someone takes to becoming an atheist.

And I think until a theist beings to think like this it is very difficult to contemplate atheism, because the idea that we are the purpose of the universe is always in the back of the persons head.

stevejazzx

daveyjoe wrote: »

I'm talking about universal constants here. These are constants that are common across all planets and galaxies. These are the constants which are responsible for the creation of matter itself.

Interestingly though, you could replace 'planets and galaxies' with 'universes'. Of course you then need to accept the theory of the multiverse.



Very true and the universal constants add weight to that argument.

There are some interesting points being made.

Oh ok..I thought you were about about the goldilocks principle..
so yeah how all energy converged to one place in the universe, a collasping universe of compacted energy which then heats up and explodes and then expands into larger clumps of matter which then become stars...it's all very eloquent but there is still the infinite regress of the elements involved...noone seems to have tackled that..maybe Hawking.

seamus

Wicknight wrote: »

And I think until a theist beings to think like this it is very difficult to contemplate atheism, because the idea that we are the purpose of the universe is always in the back of the persons head.

I'm not so sure. The only thing in my head that's prevented me from making the leap to atheist, is not so much, "Why am I here?", rather, "Why is anything here at all?". Why existence?

I'm all on board with the "Lucky set of circumstances" or "Give it aeons and something like us emerging is inevitable", it's just the initial bit that gets me - why does our universe exist at all? The answers to these questions no doubt lie outside our four-dimensional universe. Since we define everything in terms of time, we assume that before time started, nothing existed. Then suddenly something existed. Since we can't explain it, we have a tendency to insert a " higher power" to explain it away, like we've done for thousands of years.

aidan24326

Son Goku wrote: »

In terms of actually debating for God, I think an unusual quagmire is that the more logical your presentation the more cold and distant God comes across and hence sounds less like a God you'd want to believe in.

That's true, and the idea of a non-interventionist god just doesn't appeal to people enough for it to catch on. God has to be this caring grandfather in the sky who looks out for us like his little pet lambs. Despite the fact that the more sobering version of god as non-interventionist creator is actually a possibility on some level whereas the whole beardy grandad in the sky thing is just nonsense.

I would find it impossible to argue for the latter type of god, the god of traditional religion. The other more sophisticated version I don't know, you could argue that the fact there's a universe here at all suggests the definite possibility of a designer, but I don't find that argument overly convincing either, especially since that type of god would be nothing like the sort of god your average christian churchgoer believes in anyway. More 'super-advanced alien' than any sort of 'god' in the sense of how that word is normally used. I think I'd be a bit stumped on this one.

daveyjoe

Wicknight wrote: »

The realisation that the universe doesn't exist for us, that we are simply an interesting consequence of the universe, I think is the first step someone takes to becoming an atheist.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I see what you're getting at but it's not really an answer that satisfies me.

daveyjoe

Just a quick note:

I would love to see a debate between a good, reasoned, non-religious deist believer and the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris or even Christopher Hitchens.

Unfortunately, every debate I've seen includes a debater of a particular religious affiliation.

Hivemind187

daveyjoe wrote: »

Just a quick note:

I would love to see a debate between a good, reasoned, non-religious deist believer and the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris or even Christopher Hitchens.

Unfortunately, every debate I've seen includes a debater of a particular religious affiliation.

Thats usually because the most well known or respected men of the theist field usually subscribe to one faith or another.

and what do you mean "the likes of"?

daveharnett

The idea of a non-interventionist creator is a useful one, faced with my rather vague understanding of big bang theory (the word "singularity" causes me to drift off).

However, when I asked how the TV worked as a four year old, "magic" seemed like a perfectly acceptable answer.

daveyjoe

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats usually because the most well known or respected men of the theist field usually subscribe to one faith or another.

and what do you mean "the likes of"?

By 'the likes of' I meant one of the following or someone of similar ilk and reputation.

I accept your point about why religious proponents are often chosed.

I guess that while I might consider myself an atheist, I would not consider myself a through and through 'adeist' (if that term existed). I suspect a lot of people feel in a similar way and they call themselves agnostic.

Hivemind187

daveyjoe wrote: »

By 'the likes of' I meant one of the following or someone of similar ilk and reputation.

I accept your point about why religious proponents are often chosed.

I guess that while I might consider myself an atheist, I would not consider myself a through and through 'adeist' (if that term existed). I suspect a lot of people feel in a similar way and they call themselves agnostic.

Its interesting though that agnostics and atheists get lumped in together when they actually have difference view points.

Essentially agnostics arent sure and atheists (mean nont theological) do not believbe in the existance of a deity.

Thats the broad generalisation but things get far more muddy after that.

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

TBH I would find it very hard to logically argue for the existence of God in a way that would convince a rational atheist, because I don't believe there are any rational arguments for the existence of God.

That was my immediate reaction. I could totally tongue-in-cheek throw around the usual fallacies for God and sound convincing to some, no doubt. But I would immediately be able to back track and explain in detail why each and every argument I just deployed was nonesense.

If you would like to put on some sort of farcical pantomime where I play a Theist, we can do that, but no one here is going to be able to make any solid arguments for God...they don't exist.

Zombrex

daveyjoe wrote: »

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I see what you're getting at but it's not really an answer that satisfies me.

that is actually the exact logic I'm saying doesn't apply.

The universe came first. We are a product of this universe. The idea that this universe was set up to produce us has no logical foundation beyond our own ego.

Its like rolling a 6 on a dice and the 6 turning around and saying "Wow that was amazing that you managed to roll a 6. What are the odds! You must have planned that!" (this is assuming the 6 can think and talk)

The point that the 6 is missing is that if you had rolled a 5 the 5 would be saying "Wow that was amazing that you managed to roll a 5. What are the odds! You must have planned that!"

And so on ....

daveyjoe

Zillah wrote: »

That was my immediate reaction. I could totally tongue-in-cheek throw around the usual fallacies for God and sound convincing to some, no doubt. But I would immediately be able to back track and explain in detail why each and every argument I just deployed was nonesense.

If you would like to put on some sort of farcical pantomime where I play a Theist, we can do that, but no one here is going to be able to make any solid arguments for God...they don't exist.

I created the thread because I found that the theist position when debating the existence of a creator was somewhat lacking. The idea here is to play devil's advocate (pun not intended). So far, the main stay has related to the beginnings of the universe and fine tuning of the universal constants.

I do think that these are rational arguments. Granted, you could say that they are based on failings in the atheist position rather than arguments in favour of the theist position. I could also see retorts from the atheist camp about the falsifiability of these claims and where burden of proof lies. But, despite this, I still think this kind of dialogue is far more interesting and stimulating than the typical pseudo-emotive verbiage (dare I say 'farcical pantomime'?) that seems to be spewed out by theists at the moment.

daveyjoe

Wicknight wrote: »

that is actually the exact logic I'm saying doesn't apply.

The universe came first. We are a product of this universe. The idea that this universe was set up to produce us has no logical foundation beyond our own ego.

Its like rolling a 6 on a dice and the 6 turning around and saying "Wow that was amazing that you managed to roll a 6. What are the odds! You must have planned that!" (this is assuming the 6 can think and talk)

The point that the 6 is missing is that if you had rolled a 5 the 5 would be saying "Wow that was amazing that you managed to roll a 5. What are the odds! You must have planned that!"

And so on ....

Is that not a form of circular cause and consequence?

That is what I was referring to when I said "Which came first...".

Zombrex

daveyjoe wrote: »

Is that not a form of circular cause and consequence?

That is what I was referring to when I said "Which came first...".

No? Humans don't cause the universe to exist

Maybe I'm not following your point ...

Fanny Cradock

Humm... farcical pantomime! Pseudo-emotive verbiage! Oh my! Listening to theists prattle on must be quite trying for you

Back to the topic at hand, I would expect you to find a theists argument lacking. After all, I assume you are an atheist. The problem is really a matter of perspective - Zillah, for instance, thinks there is no solid argument for God's existence (and possibly he is correct in that there isn't one standalone argument); however, it is equally valid to state that there is no atheistic argument to disprove the existence of God. Now that statement is hardly a revelation, but it remains true nevertheless.

Note: I have deliberately omitted the word 'scientific' in relation to the atheist's perspective as I don't for a moment believe that science is at odds with God.

daveyjoe

Wicknight wrote: »

No? Humans don't cause the universe to exist

Maybe I'm not following your point ...

You're following my point exactly, except you're at the wrong end of it

'Humans don't cause the universe to exist', that is pretty much what I was trying to convey by 'Which came first...?'. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

It I understand your argument then you are saying something to the effect of...
Because we are in a certain universe, we are predisposed to thinking it is built to support us, but in reality it is merely the universe that we are presented with.

That makes perfect sense to me, it's just that it isn't an answer that satisfies me!

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would expect you to find a theists argument lacking. After all, I assume you are an atheist.

I would classify myself as agnostic actually. It's not so much that I find a theists argument lacking, it's more that I find their choice of argument lacking. 'How did matter come into existence?', why do theists not take that line of enquiry. My issue is with the 'I see god in everything around me' dribble! Excuse my terseness but this is not evidence for anything other than delusion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

however, it is equally valid to state that there is no atheistic argument to disprove the existence of God.

That is not an equally valid statement. God is not falsifiable, therefore it is impossible to prove that god (or a god) does not exist. I can expand upon this if you like.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

however, it is equally valid to state that there is no atheistic argument to disprove the existence of God. Now that statement is hardly a revelation, but it remains true nevertheless.

You can't disprove the existence of something that untestable and doesn't exist.

That is impossible, which is why the theists define God as untestable.

Zillah

daveyjoe wrote: »

I do think that these are rational arguments.

They're not arguments for God at all. They are interesting observations of the natural world. They no more support the existence of God than the pseudo-emotive verbiage you have already complained about, they just seem more rational because you're less equipped to counter them.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

however, it is equally valid to state that there is no atheistic argument to disprove the existence of God. Now that statement is hardly a revelation, but it remains true nevertheless.

It is a true statement to say that there is no argument to disprove God. But to think that this observation is anything more than a limp wristed deflection is foolishness. There are an infinity of ridiculous things I could claim existed, and could use your above observation to support all of them. If this is the logic you subscribe to then you are in the multitudinous company of madmen and charlatans. Unless you can pull yourself out of such an intellectual gutter then I hope the world views your claims with an appropriate degree of disdain.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

however, it is equally valid to state that there is no atheistic argument to disprove the existence of God. Now that statement is hardly a revelation, but it remains true nevertheless.

As I said back at the beginning, that a god is possible and cannot be disproved remains for me the strongest argument for a deist-type god.

in the multitudinous company of madmen and charlatans,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I said back at the beginning, that a god is possible and cannot be disproved remains for me the strongest argument for a deist-type god.

For me, out of all the places I could be shot, being shot in the foot is the best. Although being shot in the foot is still not desireable.

axer

There is no argument that can explain if there was a creator/god etc then who created this creator/god etc. and so on?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote: »

As I said back at the beginning, that a god is possible and cannot be disproved remains for me the strongest argument for a deist-type god.

For me, out of all the places I could be shot, being shot in the foot is the best. Although being shot in the foot is still not desireable.

Yes, but then I didn't say I found it convincing. Certainly not convincing enough to give it any more than a nod along the same axis as determines that unicorns and dragons may be 'out there somewhere'.

Also, the statistical chances of any limited deity being here on Earth rather than elsewhere is of the same or greater order of magnitude than that which convinces believers we must be especially created - unless of course deities are a not particularly rare form of life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stereoroid

If I tried that, in the absence of scientific evidence for a god or gods, I'd have to focus on the social aspects. In other words, I'd sounds like a cross between an Ayatollah and Big Brother, pushing the idea that people are animals that can't be trusted to decide how to live their own lives, and need to be strictly controlled by religious brainwashing. It just wouldn't be me... :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Hmm. Step outside the Judeo-Christian notion of a Supreme and Creator God for a moment. I'm thinking more of local gods here.

Consciousness appears to "arise" from organised matter, no-one being quite sure how. Currently, the only type of organised matter we recognise as giving rise to consciousness is the brain, but what if there are other orgnaisations of matter that have the same property? At what scale would we call such a consciousness a 'god'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

daveyjoe wrote: »

That is not an equally valid statement. God is not falsifiable, therefore it is impossible to prove that god (or a god) does not exist. I can expand upon this if you like.

I fail to see how it is different. In neither case can God be proven to exist or not exist. You are arguing over the existence or non-existence of something you have defined as not falsifiable, therefore both statements - i.e. no definitive evidence for God’s existence and none against - carry the same weight. But, please, feel free to expand on your original statement.

I would argue that this leaves the believer with anecdotal and personal experiences (rather than the empirical evidence demanded by some) to form and base their faith around. Faith based on this type of ‘evidence’, however, is dismissed out of hand by some atheists. Indeed, it is treated with unjustified and overt disdain by some, as I believe is in evidence from the tone of the odd post.

Anyway, I would suggest that if you are not hearing the type of argument which appeal to you then you are not looking in the correct places. I personally find some of the articles from this website http://www.asa3.org/ (American Scientific Affiliation – it’s a website for scientists who are Christians) to be quite enlightening. Who knows, you may very well find a hypothesis to your question ‘How did matter come into existence?’.

axer wrote: »

There is no argument that can explain if there was a creator/god etc then who created this creator/god etc. and so on?

This seems a limited way of thinking to me (that’s not an insult, btw). For a moment assume there is a God – using your above line of reasoning you are talking about him existing in a temporal plane, which I think is a limitation he isn’t subject to. My argument to this would be that there is no beginning or end with God as he is not subject to time.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, but then I didn't say I found it convincing. Certainly not convincing enough to give it any more than a nod along the same axis as determines that unicorns and dragons may be 'out there somewhere'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As a matter of interest, Scofflaw, would you be alluding to the potential existence of alien lifeforms 'out there somewhere', including something along the lines of the planet 'Unicoria'? To me - and I have no problem believing that there is something else out there - this would seem like the leap of faith in light of there being no physical evidence (I'm not speaking of the statical likelihood, rather something along the lines of Roswellian 'evidence') as to there being anything else.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As a matter of interest, Scofflaw, would you be alluding to the potential existence of alien lifeforms 'out there somewhere', including something along the lines of the planet 'Unicoria'? To me - and I have no problem believing that there is something else out there - this would seem like the leap of faith in light of there being no physical evidence (I'm not speaking of the statical likelihood, rather something along the lines of Roswellian 'evidence') as to there being anything else.

I find the notion that we are alone in the Universe just as improbable as the notion of God, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Our egos always tell us that we, particularly, are very special - unique, in fact. That's the ego's job. Unfortunately, it's not usually the truth in any objective sense. Most of us are average (well, median, really) - nearly all of us fall within a reasonably short distance of average.

However, we tend to take that and project it on the Universe. We, as humans, are special - in less enlightened times and places, we, as white people, or we, as God's chosen. The idea that the Earth is not only not average, not only special, but unique, is exactly the same idea. Chances are, this is an ordinary kind of solar system, and it's just a question of chance whether there's a planet in the habitable zone.

I found it absolutely amazing that people thought we weren't even going to find other planets out there. What kind of mind does it take to think that?

So, er, to stop this particular hobby-horse's gallop, no, I don't consider it a leap of faith. We know the stars are suns. We know that this sun has planets round it. Therefore there are planets round other stars - now confirmed, if it needed confirmation. We know that Earth is habitable because of where it lies in relation to the Sun. Therefore there are other habitable planets. Once you have habitable planets, you will have life. And once you have life - well, the Universe is bloody enormous. Statistically, there will be something out there that if we saw it would make us go "woah - unicorn!". We're just not likely to meet it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

daveyjoe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I fail to see how it is different. In neither case can God be proven to exist or not exist. You are arguing over the existence or non-existence of something you have defined as not falsifiable, therefore both statements - i.e. no definitive evidence for God’s existence and none against - carry the same weight. But, please, feel free to expand on your original statement.

There is a green fairy named Gary with a yellow hat, black penny loafers and red suspenders flying just above your left ear as you are reading this sentence. You can't see him, feel him or hear him, in fact he is totally invisible to your five senses. He lives outside the metaphysical.

Disprove that Gary exists.

Tell me where the difference in provability between God and Gary lies? Then tell me why you believe the fact that god can not be disproved should have any real significance?

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're just not likely to meet it.

Possibly a good thing. For every unicorn out there, there could be a venom dripping demonic monster the size of my house.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Faith based on this type of ‘evidence’, however, is dismissed out of hand by some atheists. Indeed, it is treated with unjustified and overt disdain by some, as I believe is in evidence from the tone of the odd post.

Why is it unjustified?

Saying that you had a feeling that God exists is not a plausible evidence that he does exist, because the other conclusion, that this is a trick of your mind that you interpret in a certain way because you want to, is a far more rational and grounded explanation.

The reason you think that is "disdain" is because you have personally invested in the conclusion that God does exist. It matters a great deal to you. Which is not a healthy way to look at this issue objectively.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote: »

Possibly a good thing. For every unicorn out there, there could be a venom dripping demonic monster the size of my house.

More than one, I'd say - unicorn is a quite a tight description, whereas you can have all sorts of venom dripping demonic monsters the size of my house.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote: »

Once you have habitable planets, you will have life

We don't know that though, life here on earth could be a complete fluke. Hopefully not, but we currently have no more evidence for extraterrestrial life than we do for god.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote: »

We don't know that though, life here on earth could be a complete fluke. Hopefully not, but we currently have no more evidence for extraterrestrial life than we do for god.

Turn the teapot argument upside down: just as no-one can prove there isn't a teapot floating round Jupiter, but the default presumption would be that there isn't, so no-one has yet proved that there is life out there (and may never be able to do so), but the default presumption should be that there is.

For anyone who doesn't believe that God specially created this world to be utterly unlike every other, the odds against us being "a fluke" are of magnitudes to beggar belief. This Galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to contain 400 billion luminous stars - even assuming that only 1% of stars have planets (say an average of 5 planets) we are talking 20 billion planets (more recent estimates suggest at least 6 billion Jupiter-sized planets alone). The question of whether a planet is in the habitable zone of its star is only statistical. Again, even assuming only 1% of planets are in the habitable zone, we have 20 million potentially life-bearing planets. That is in the Milky Way alone. Across the whole Universe we are talking hundreds of billions of planets.

Even if the odds against life are of the order of Captain Capslock's Creationist calculations (TM), there will still be hundreds or thousands of planets with life on them scattered through the Universe.

Any claim that the default position is that we are the only life in the Universe must first justify why Earth is so mind-bogglingly special. As an atheist, I can see no such justification.

cordially,
Scofflaw