Logical proofs for God

padser

i dunnooo............greater?????

Obni

Sorry to jump back in time like this, but I've only just discovered this board.
From the allegedly irrefutable Maynooth argument...

neuro-praxis wrote:

Since we now know with certainty that possibility is insufficient for actuality,...

OK, fine -

neuro-praxis wrote:

... then we know that the possibility of a world is not enough for a world to exist.

Again, no problem-

neuro-praxis wrote:

Possibilities of existence do not alter existence.

Still with you-

neuro-praxis wrote:

And each event has a cause.

Mmm-

neuro-praxis wrote:

Therefore, as we can see that the world is insufficient for its own existence, then there must be something outside of thw world and not identical to itself that caused its existence.

Well-

neuro-praxis wrote:

That which grants existence is unique: to provide that which it is to be. What God turns out to be is that which is identical to what it is to be.

Whoa! How did God just leap into the argument. All this argument can claim to be, if it can claim anything, is to be a logical proof that our understanding of the universe is not sufficient to explain its origin.

Playboy

Hmmm. Neuro-Praxis your arguement sounds like a very poorly phrased reworking of Descartes third meditation. If you really are using Descartes to prove the existence of God then you might want to read some of the hundreds of critics he has had over the few hundred years since his death. They do a very good job undermining nearly all his arguements.

dodgy_stalker

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

Zulu

dodgy_stalker wrote:

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

...and that's your first post! Brilliant. :rolleyes: I love boards.

dodgy_stalker

Zulu wrote:

...and that's your first post! Brilliant. :rolleyes: I love boards.

whasup wi me first post yO?


P.S. i love you :rolleyes:

simu

Back on topic please, people.

Playboy

dodgy_stalker wrote:

BLah blah blAH blah bloody logic asif, sentience is the only thing that makes a difference here the end product of the chemicals in your brain that produce ideas that is what makes god or not FULLS TOP.

prove it

Ania

If God's existance was proved, why should anybody 'believe' in him anymore?

Just an example: According to statistics, Ireland has around 4 Million inhabitans.
You cannot prove it, but you believe the statistics.
That's the same with the question about the existance of God.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

What? How does that work? I for one don't believe it's in any way logical to conclude that there is a God, and I'm not the only one.

With regard to the topic, I remember reading an interview with Douglas Adams on the matter where he said he usually described himself as a "radical atheist" to try and indicate that yes, he really had thought this through and read up on the subject and no, he didn't want to have some nice but misguided fools from the local parish try to convert him.

how is it illogical to believe in god?

sure the idea of religion weather its catholicism or islam or whatever is a bit outrageous but the belief in god is not an unusual one

you could say you dont believe in god because of the scientific evidence eg. the big bang etc. the big bang proves nothing. its a theory it only suggests that the universe began with a bang. WOW!

think about it for god not to exist means that you can do anything in life and there will be no ultimate consequence, no judgement if you will. if that is the case it means that every bad person in the world who kills rapes and pillages - gets away with it suffers no ultimate consequences. ultimately would mean that life is a bunch of mean mother fukers getting away with murder and everything that is good and just in the world is pointless. and we should all just start killing eachother cause in the end it wont matter. that doesnt sound very logical to me....

there are so many arguments, so many possibilitys and an infinate amount of unknowns, and in the end their is no solid evidence either way so how could someone put foreward any logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded
edit:

Canis Lupus wrote:

I love all the big words ppl use in these arguments. I'm an atheist because god hasn't personally tapped me on the shoulder and said "boo" to me yet. I don't find my attitude lazy.

arent you agnostic then?

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

how is it illogical to believe in god?

sure the idea of religion weather its catholicism or islam or whatever is a bit outrageous but the belief in god is not an unusual one

you could say you dont believe in god because of the scientific evidence eg. the big bang etc. the big bang proves nothing. its a theory it only suggests that the universe began with a bang. WOW!

think about it for god not to exist means that you can do anything in life and there will be no ultimate consequence, no judgement if you will. if that is the case it means that every bad person in the world who kills rapes and pillages - gets away with it suffers no ultimate consequences. ultimately would mean that life is a bunch of mean mother fukers getting away with murder and everything that is good and just in the world is pointless. and we should all just start killing eachother cause in the end it wont matter. that doesnt sound very logical to me....

there are so many arguments, so many possibilitys and an infinate amount of unknowns, and in the end their is no solid evidence either way so how could someone put foreward any logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded

so, basically, your entire argument is that because you can't cope with the notion of the universe not adhering to your rather localised definition of right and wrong, god must exist?

Yes, well done. Capital effort there. "I'm too scared of accepting that my concept of justice might be arbitrary in terms of galactic or universal scale, therefore God exists". Descartes has nothing on you.

Seriously, though. Your concept of justice is one that, basically, is developed for the functional existence, more or less, of a bunch of lifeforms in a closed space. There is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it applies outside of our own civilisations, much less on other planets. And yes, that does carry with it the rather sucky realisation that ultimately, a lot of people get away with being rather crappy to each other for their entire lives. This does not mean that we should all go and commit crimes and be horrible to each other, and I'd love to see the logical argument that says otherwise. To be perfectly honest, that part of your argument fails and instead makes you look like a stereotype of the repressed religious person. The inexistence of God, to me, suggests only that each person should accept responsibility for their own actions.

We're talking about the human condition. Deal with it. Renounce your sense of justice, start a crusade in the name of justice, accept things as they are and carry on. But don't ignore reality and claim that logic is on your side in doing so.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

so, basically, your entire argument is that because you can't cope with the notion of the universe not adhering to your rather localised definition of right and wrong, god must exist?

Yes, well done. Capital effort there. "I'm too scared of accepting that my concept of justice might be arbitrary in terms of galactic or universal scale, therefore God exists". Descartes has nothing on you.

Seriously, though. Your concept of justice is one that, basically, is developed for the functional existence, more or less, of a bunch of lifeforms in a closed space. There is absolutely nothing about it that suggests it applies outside of our own civilisations, much less on other planets. And yes, that does carry with it the rather sucky realisation that ultimately, a lot of people get away with being rather crappy to each other for their entire lives. This does not mean that we should all go and commit crimes and be horrible to each other, and I'd love to see the logical argument that says otherwise. To be perfectly honest, that part of your argument fails and instead makes you look like a stereotype of the repressed religious person. The inexistence of God, to me, suggests only that each person should accept responsibility for their own actions.

We're talking about the human condition. Deal with it. Renounce your sense of justice, start a crusade in the name of justice, accept things as they are and carry on. But don't ignore reality and claim that logic is on your side in doing so.

if you want to just focus on the one thing then you can but the fact is i stated several other things that you mentioned nothing about

your argument was that their is no logical reason why anyone would believe in god, and my argument is that their is no logical reason why anyone shouldnt believe in god. being that their are so many variables and so many unknowns you cannot make a logical argument that the belief in god is unfounded, you cannot say for certain that god doesnt exist therefore there is the possibility that he does exist... and that alone is more proof than any scientific study has given us.......

pissing all over one statement that i made doesnt take away from that

and i wasnt saying that we should all go out on a rampage i was sayin wheres the logic in following rules that ultimately have no concequences

if ur going to use logic about this type of argument you should be willing to throw logic out the window cause it has no place in a god debate cause it always brings us to the dead end each way

im not religious, however i do believe in god and i am not afraid of being wrong because everytime i am wrong means i will be less wrong in the future

Dades

Catsmokinpot wrote:

if you want to just focus on the one thing then you can but the fact is i stated several other things that you mentioned nothing about

pissing all over one statement that i made doesnt take away from that

and i wasnt saying that we should all go out on a rampage i was sayin wheres the logic in following rules that ultimately have no concequences

if ur going to use logic about this type of argument you should be willing to throw logic out the window cause it has no place in a god debate cause it always brings us to the dead end each way

im not religious, however i do believe in god and i am not afraid of being wrong because everytime i am wrong means i will be less wrong in the future

Catsmokin
In your last post you gave one argument which you suggest infers the existence of a god. That one argument is the one that got "pissed on". Namely that if god didn't exist then justice would not be meted out on death. Fire & brimstone. Quake ye sinners etc. This is CROWD CONTROL at it's most basic. Reward and punish. A human concept which exists in some shape or form in every religion. Why is that? Power lies with fear.

The only other point you make is that consistantly infuriating notion that because god can't be proven not to exist, that nobody can believe he doesn't. I refer you to the IPU as an example of just how pointless that line of thought is.

You say you are not religious but yet you believe in god and believe that you will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife for the life you lived. Well that makes you religious in my book. And that's fine - knock yourself out.

Just don't presume to tell others what they can or can't believe in, or try to use LOGIC to prove the existance of a notional figure that you obviously require to put order to your existance.

If someone was to prove there is no god, would you reject your morals? Would you go on a selfish rampage knowing that in death there would be no consequences? I don't think so. Because you, like me, or fysh do not require the fear of eternal torment to live our lives morally. And if you accept that you have to accept that god is not a requirement for everyone.

Playboy

There are lots of questions here that need to be answered.

1. What is logic?
2. Who invented logic?
3. Why should we believe in logic?
4. Why is it illogical to believe in a force outside of ourselves and greater than ourselves?
5. Why cant we say that we just dont know when nobody actually does?
6. Was it really a conincidence that the world exists like it does and we think like we do?
7. Why do we assume we have the intellectual ability to fully comprehend the true meaning of the world and the cosmos whether it is through science or religion?

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

Catsmokin
In your last post you gave one argument which you suggest infers the existence of a god. That one argument is the one that got "pissed on". Namely that if god didn't exist then justice would not be meted out on death. Fire & brimstone. Quake ye sinners etc. This is CROWD CONTROL at it's most basic. Reward and punish. A human concept which exists in some shape or form in every religion. Why is that? Power lies with fear.

The only other point you make is that consistantly infuriating notion that because god can't be proven not to exist, that nobody can believe he doesn't. I refer you to the IPU as an example of just how pointless that line of thought is.

You say you are not religious but yet you believe in god and believe that you will be rewarded or punished in the afterlife for the life you lived. Well that makes you religious in my book. And that's fine - knock yourself out.

Just don't presume to tell others what they can or can't believe in, or try to use LOGIC to prove the existance of a notional figure that you obviously require to put order to your existance.

If someone was to prove there is no god, would you reject your morals? Would you go on a selfish rampage knowing that in death there would be no consequences? I don't think so. Because you, like me, or fysh do not require the fear of eternal torment to live our lives morally. And if you accept that you have to accept that god is not a requirement for everyone.

yes an infuriating argument isnt it but none the less just as valid as any argument that you put fourth

are you so arrogant that you cant admitt that there is a slight possibility that you are infact wrong? i can admit it with no problem

i also said that no amount science has proven so far or even pointed to the conclusion that god doesnt exist......

the big bang is only a theory.... which points to the conclusion that the universe began with a bang. it only points out that most religions have got it wrong about their beliefs.......

evolution points to the conclusion that we evolved from single cellular organisms and that we were just an elaborate accident which i to be honest is like believing in the immaculate conception. but i mean in the end believe what you want to believe

and i never said anyone should believe in god or that they shouldn't. but i get really pissed off when people say that the belief in god is unfounded and stupid. it is not stupid

rules whatever they are, keep a balance, the universe is balanced it was isaac newton who said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction..... now i know you cant litterally relate this to good and bad but i believe there is a balance here that needs to be kept. weather it infact is a judgement or fire and brimstone or what some people call karma its a balance.
i believe some sort of god keeps a balance

thats only my belief... but who are you to just poo poo it like that.

edit:
Religious
→ adj.
1. relating to or believing in a religion. • belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group united by their practice of religion.
2. treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship.

i do not worship god and i am do not belong to a religion and i dont think god is up there warming my seat.... :rolleyes:

Catsmokinpot

Playboy wrote:

There are lots of questions here that need to be answered.

1. What is logic?
2. Who invented logic?
3. Why should we believe in logic?
4. Why is it illogical to believe in a force outside of ourselves and greater than ourselves?
5. Why cant we say that we just dont know when nobody actually does?
6. Was it really a conincidence that the world exists like it does and we think like we do?
7. Why do we assume we have the intellectual ability to fully comprehend the true meaning of the world and the cosmos whether it is through science or religion?

exactly
at the end of the day noone knows what the **** is going on. religion and science get it wrong all the time so why cant we just listen to eachothers opinion without getting smart and slating the othersides views...........

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

evolution points to the conclusion that we evolved from single cellular organisms and that we were just an elaborate accident which i to be honest is like believing in the immaculate conception. but i mean in the end believe what you want to believe

Well, evolution is a fairly well tested and plausible theory with great explanatory power. It is true though that ultimately you believe what you want to believe but I think that the reason why people believe in things like evolution is very different to the reason why people believe in things like the immaculate conception.

Catsmokinpot

SkepticOne wrote:

Well, evolution is a fairly well tested and plausible theory with great explanatory power. It is true though that ultimately you believe what you want to believe but I think that the reason why people believe in things like evolution is very different to the reason why people believe in things like the immaculate conception.

true i suppose, but its the elabourate accident part of the evolution theory is the part that is just as unbelievable their is no proof or evidence behind this part of the theory it is just made up by some guy just like the immaculate conception was made up by some guy....

the actual process of evolution is very plausable but none of it explains where it started

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

the actual process of evolution is very plausable but none of it explains where it started

Well the origin of life itself is still a debated topic and there are a variety of theories. The theory of evolution through natural selection really only deals with the process once it gets started. But the motivation behind these theories and the way they are arrived at and, say, immaculate conception is the crucial thing not the believability imo.

Catsmokinpot

SkepticOne wrote:

Well the origin of life itself is still a debated topic and there are a variety of theories. The theory of evolution through natural selection really only deals with the process once it gets started. But the motivation behind these theories and the way they are arrived at and, say, immaculate conception is the crucial thing not the believability imo.

i understand what your saying but to be honest the people who made up both theories have an unbelievably limited understanding of whats going on in the universe although one has a little more understanding than the other theyre still both not convincing enough to make me believe either story

SkepticOne

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i understand what your saying but to be honest the people who made up both theories have an unbelievably limited understanding of whats going on in the universe although one has a little more understanding than the other theyre still both not convincing enough to make me believe either story

My respect tends to go to those who attempt to formulate testable, plausible theories with predictive and explanatory powers. With regards to theories about the origin of life, at least you can say that those who formulate these theories are open to be proved wrong.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception, on the other hand, is not subject to this. It is either an article of faith or derived from other articles of faith. If you believe in these things you do so because you are required to as a member of that religion not because, independent of your religion, the thing can be established as being true.

The Muslim believes that the Quran is the literal word of God because he is required to. The Christian is not obliged to believe this but is required to believe that Jesus was the son of God and so forth. These things are more part of the definition of the religion than objective aspects of the world. Believing that Jesus was the son of God is part of of what it means to be Christian. It is a tautology.

I'm probably overstating the case here. I just want to make explicit the fundamental difference in the two types of story and why whether or not you believe them is not really important.

Playboy

tbh Skeptic what I think Catsmokinpot is trying to say is that believing in a God or a force in the universe is a logical thing. If you hold to mans linear way of thinking then there has to have been a begining to all of this. To think that all of this is a coincidence is probably the more illogical point of view. Science has thought us a great deal about how the universe works and operates but it doesnt explain the bigger mystery of life and its purpose. Many scientists (esp biologists) have a belief in something greater in the universe outside of themselves. End game physics is so out there with some of its theories that most people would find it incredible that they are plausible scientific theories.

Fysh

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.

dictionary.com wrote:

log·ic Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science.
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

Dades

Catsmokinpot wrote:

thats only my belief... but who are you to just poo poo it like that.

You didn't just state your belief - you tried to justify it with logic on a message board. I have no problem with anyone believing what they want, but any argument is fair game to scrutiny here.

Catsmokinpot wrote:

are you so arrogant that you cant admitt that there is a slight possibility that you are infact wrong?

Where did you get that idea? I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a "god" as defined by me. We are ALL in fact agnostic because none of us know the truth, and anyone who claims to do so rightly deserves derision.

Oh, and what fysh said.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.



I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

See my problem with your point of view is your unshakeable faith in logic and reasoning. Western logic is only one way of looking at and understanding the world, and the scientific method is by no means flawless. Would a dog’s method of reasoning help him understand quantum mechanics? No it wouldn’t because quantum mechanics in my opinion falls outside the ability of a dog’s mind to understand or comprehend. Just because the dog has no evidence for the existence of quantum theory does not mean it does not exist. Can we apply the same principle to human beings? One of the questions I asked earlier was what makes us think that we have the ability to comprehend the true nature of our existence? Is it illogical to think that there are things that exist outside us and beyond our understanding? In my opinion it is illogical to think the opposite. You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

Dades

Playboy wrote:

You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

So as usual then this particular snippet of debate depends on one's definition of a "god".

Saying you believe in something other than what we know or understand, and labelling it a "god" simply muddies the water. How can anyone debate the [non] existence of something that is completely undefined?

I asked this before to no reply: if we were to discover that life on our planet was planted by an intelligent alien race - would they then be gods? Or do "gods" have be at the very top of the food chain?

Interesting analogy with the dog on quantum physics. And true. The problem starts when the dog claims to have all the answers without the capacity to reach them.

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

See my problem with your point of view is your unshakeable faith in logic and reasoning. Western logic is only one way of looking at and understanding the world, and the scientific method is by no means flawless. Would a dog’s method of reasoning help him understand quantum mechanics? No it wouldn’t because quantum mechanics in my opinion falls outside the ability of a dog’s mind to understand or comprehend. Just because the dog has no evidence for the existence of quantum theory does not mean it does not exist. Can we apply the same principle to human beings? One of the questions I asked earlier was what makes us think that we have the ability to comprehend the true nature of our existence? Is it illogical to think that there are things that exist outside us and beyond our understanding? In my opinion it is illogical to think the opposite. You will find that people such as myself and I assume Catsmokinpot believe in something greater in the universe that falls outside our ability to comprehend and we attach the name God to this. We don’t assume to know anything about it apart from the belief in its existence.

My "faith" in logic and reasoning comes from the core distinction between it and actual faith-based belief systems - which is that it requires you to be willing to change your perspective upon presentation of new data. It does assume that we perceive the world accurately but frankly if you're going to question that you can join the queue.

Your analogy with a dog is flawed. Partly because a dog's cognitive ability, including its ability to form causal links based on cause & effect chains, is very limited compared to that of humans. You only have to check with dog trainers and ask how they train dogs to behave in certain ways to realise this. So if a dog cannot easily form links between non-immediate events and analyse them, how would we expect it to develop a system of reasoning?

There are things that we don't understand and cannot currently explain. I don't see why we have to assume that we're never going to understand them. Nor do I see why you have to call that "God" and then side with those whose belief in what they call "God" is extremely different to yours. Our key difference here would appear to be whether you believe the human endeavour can ever understand everything about our universe.

I believe that, with enough work and time, we can. And even if we do not ever get to the stage of fully comprehending everything about our existence, I would opt for the attempt to further our understanding than for resigning ourselves to never fully getting there and choosing to believe in what may or may not be a total fiction instead.

You appear to believe that we can't, therefore preferring for the presumably comforting belief that there is some sort of higher intellect or entity out there that cares about us.

I would also point out that you do not know anything at all about it. You are assuming it exists. Frankly, once you've done that you're pretty much entitled to ascribe whatever properties to it you like, since you're openly admitting that you've got no evidence for it and therefore no way of convincing someone who doesn't already share your belief.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

Yes, but to say that "we can't explain something" is one thing. To then claim that this justifies believing in an entity who we have no evidence for (other than as the stated cause of those things we can't explain) and whose attributes we cannot, by definition, test by experiment, is to violate that notion.

I've left the Computer Science definition in there because it illustrates my point rather neatly. Logic is about consistency and structural integrity as applied to chains of reasoning.

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for. The only "evidence" for the existence of God is actually just a collection of unexplained phenomena (such as the beginning of the universe, if there was such a thing) that people point to and say "See? Science can't explain that. Therefore there must be a God.". Or people like Catsmokinpot say "Well, I hate the idea of us being alone in the universe and not subject to any reason to be ethical, therefore there must be a god." Or people say "well, I've been told it's true since I was a child and find it very difficult to challenge this deeply ingrained belief, therefore there must be a God".

Lots of reasons people give themselves, but none of them are actually very convincing unless you already believe in God. At least not from where I'm sitting.

science itself is about looking outside the box. being open to possibilities

that you cant even accept the possibility amazes me

what im saying is science hasnt even suggested that god doesnt exist

and even if their is no evidence; the mere fact that life, even a single celld organism is so unbelievably complicated points me to the conclusion that this wasnt an accident. that is a theory based on the observation of how complex life is, even given the grand scale of the universe and the amount of possibilities

look at a random book for instance not nearly as complicated as a single cell of bacteria but looking at this book you can see by its complexity it is not a natural phenomenon. now you can say that you cant compare the two but with an open minded view you can see the similarities and notice A possibility that life also might not be an accident

dont just limit yourself to logic your not vulcan....

i have been told since i was a child to make my own conclusions about the whole thing. i was baptised against the will of my mother when i was a baby but in the end she figured it would be no harm and it wasnt, and that is my only affinity to any religion. im not afraid of being alone in the universe cause as far as i know we've been alone in the universe for quite some time now...........

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

science itself is about looking outside the box. being open to possibilities

that you cant even accept the possibility amazes me

what im saying is science hasnt even suggested that god doesnt exist

Indeed. Science has had very little to say either way. But if that's your argument in favour of god, you'll be accepting the existence of invisible hermaphroditic pink unicorns and insane anal-fisting dwarves named Klaus because I could present the same arguments regarding their existence.

Or, put shortly, the onus is on you to prove something exists, not on me to prove it doesn't exist. Otherwise things just get silly.

catsmokinpot wrote:

and even if their is no evidence; the mere fact that life, even a single celld organism is so unbelievably complicated points me to the conclusion that this wasnt an accident. that is a theory based on the observation of how complex life is, even given the grand scale of the universe and the amount of possibilities

Do you have any conception of how vast the universe is? And how long its currently estimated lifespan is? Because, if you do and you had any understanding of Drake's equation, you'd understand that actually the emergence of life doesn't necessarily represent the existence of a higher power. I'd encourage you to read a bit about anthropic reasoning and Drake's equation if you want to understand my position on this subject further.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way I would accept the emergence of life as being indidative of a higher power would be if we found conclusively that there was no life anywhere else in the universe.

catsmokinpot wrote:

look at a random book for instance not nearly as complicated as a single cell of bacteria but looking at this book you can see by its complexity it is not a natural phenomenon. now you can say that you cant compare the two but with an open minded view you can see the similarities and notice A possibility that life also might not be an accident

And a possibility is that it is. Look at our solar system. Even within that there are expectations that Mars or Europa may have, at some point, been host to lifeforms. And that's just the local neighbourhood. Quite why you assume that life is unique and special to the Earth when we've got comparatively little evidence regarding life elsewhere is beyond me. I'm remdined of the alleged joke about statisticians, mathematicians, astrophysicists (the one with the "in scotland there is at least one field with at least one sheep at least one half of which is black" punchline).

catsmokinpot wrote:

dont just limit yourself to logic your not vulcan....

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to logic thanks.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i have been told since i was a child to make my own conclusions about the whole thing. i was baptised against the will of my mother when i was a baby but in the end she figured it would be no harm and it wasnt, and that is my only affinity to any religion. im not afraid of being alone in the universe cause as far as i know we've been alone in the universe for quite some time now...........

....

So, us being alone in the universe matches your previously suggested belief in a higher power how? In a Stephen-King's-"IT"-style "God is dead" way? Not that I'm about to convert or anything, but it would probably make it easier to discuss this if I had a reasonable idea where you're coming from.

Playboy

Fysh can u understand that logic is a construct? Its an invention of man .. its a way of understanding the world. Your belief in logic is exactly the same as someone else's belief in pink unicorns. Don’t u get it? Man invented logic. Ofc other points of view don’t make sense if you try and understand everything with logic. Aristotle wrote the first book on logic.. does that make him your God .. because as I said b4 your FAITH in logic as a way of understanding the world is ridiculous. Every argument that you use to try and knock someone else's point of view can be turned around and used against you. All that anyone can say for sure is that we know nothing.

Also my analogy of the Dog is not flawed.. try and think about it this time .. what is to say that our cognitive ability is not limited in comparison to something else?

Your belief in the fact that we will be eventually be able to understand everything is just as ridiculous as someone else's belief in a God. How do you know what our cognitive ability is? How do you know if cognitive ability means anything when it comes to understanding the nature of our existence? Why do you think that conscious awareness and logic is going to give us all the answers? Because you believe in them? Logic and science is your God, and if you don’t understand that then you would want to think about it some more.

Playboy

Also Fysh why are you bringing anthropic reasoning into the argument.. If anything it helps to prove the opposite of your point. Drake's equation is a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.. wtf has that got to do with anything? Also the point still stands that both of these theories are based in a logical way of reasoning.. what gives a logical way of reasoning more validity than any other way of reasoning?

Dades

Playboy wrote:

logic is a construct? Its an invention of man .. its a way of understanding the world. Your belief in logic is exactly the same as someone else's belief in pink unicorns. Don’t u get it? Man invented logic. Ofc other points of view don’t make sense if you try and understand everything with logic.

But is logic not the only way we can actually use to try and verify whether something exists or not?

If we enter a debate on the existance of an entity, and leave our logic hats at the door what are we left with? If we recognise that (as per your analogy) we do not have the cognisance to form the thoughts that will lead us to the truth then why waste time with idle speculation in some field of thought that can lead us nowhere?

Once logic is gone, all we are left with is wild speculation that is open to argument from anybody with a bigger vocabulary. If we know that we don't know why would anybody attempt to understand the "truth", and then get perturbed when people are sceptical...

Fysh

Playboy wrote:

Also Fysh why are you bringing anthropic reasoning into the argument.. If anything it helps to prove the opposite of your point. Drake's equation is a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy.. wtf has that got to do with anything? Also the point still stands that both of these theories are based in a logical way of reasoning.. what gives a logical way of reasoning more validity than any other way of reasoning?

Because anthropic reasoning is being used by Catsmokinpot. To say "we've evolved, and we're special, therefore there must be a Great Designer" without any concrete analysis or understanding of the existence or otherwise of life outside our world is to use anthropic reasoning. Drake's Equation is a handy way of trying to show that assuming we are the only lifeforms in the universe (and by extension that we are special for it and must have been made by someone) is a flawed or at least incomplete assumption.

As for why is a logical form of reasoning more valid than any other? Well, I haven't seen any form of "reasoning" on display, and I'm saying logical reasoning is more valid than no reasoning. Forming conclusions based on available evidence strikes me as being more likely to result in a worldview analogous to the actual world than forming conclusions based on what I'd like. And at the end of the day, a worldview that accurately maps the actual world is what I'm looking for. Your mileage may vary, etc.


Back to my "faith" in logic. Yes, I know. Well done. We invented it and have no guarantees that it's perfect. However, logical reasoning has given us scientific disciplines which have managed to model and understand the world and give us many revolutionary inventions. Central to this is the notion of accepting that theories must be discarded or enhanced if they can be proven to be wrong or incomplete. It is the willingness to discard anything that does not fit the evidence gathered from the real world that makes logical reasoning distinct from others - it is still a human construct and it is still subject to the same holes as any form of belief that requires you to accept that what you see and sense as being the world is accurate, but it's the best one we've got. Science has given us medicine, communications technology, electronics. Other forms of reasoning cannot lay claim to anything like that.

As for the dog....while we may have inferior intellects compared to other creatures, the fact remains that as far as we understand it we have the ability to create valid models of the universe using tools we have developed, and refine them when necessary. Dogs cannot do this because they lack the minimum cognitive abilities to do so. Given that very few human beings truly understand the full implications of quantum mechanics, it's pretty daft to expect a creature not biologically equipped for it to do so. However, there's no reason to assume that because we can't fully understand things currently, that we won't ever understand them better. I haven't got any proof that we will comprehend everything eventually and freely admit this; however, that is the way I lean and I would strive for us as a species to make the attempt rather than give up assuming that it must be greater than us.

Whether we will ever know everything is unknowable, as is the existence of God. So from a logical perspective, I go with the current evidence. There is, for me, no convincing evidence that god exists. There is no evidence either way in terms of understanding everything - there are still things we don't understand at all, but on the other hand over the last 500 years we have made huge advances in terms of our understanding of the world. Ultimately I expect we'll have to just wait and see.

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

Indeed. Science has had very little to say either way. But if that's your argument in favour of god, you'll be accepting the existence of invisible hermaphroditic pink unicorns and insane anal-fisting dwarves named Klaus because I could present the same arguments regarding their existence.

Or, put shortly, the onus is on you to prove something exists, not on me to prove it doesn't exist. Otherwise things just get silly..

im sorry you sifted some crappy unicorn notion of the internet from your nerdy one track mind athiest internet gang to belittle my own slightly more rational ideas, although i wouldnt be surprised if there were anal fisting dwarves; the germans are pretty whacko when it comes to that sort of thing.

Fysh wrote:

Do you have any conception of how vast the universe is? And how long its currently estimated lifespan is? Because, if you do and you had any understanding of Drake's equation, you'd understand that actually the emergence of life doesn't necessarily represent the existence of a higher power. I'd encourage you to read a bit about anthropic reasoning and Drake's equation if you want to understand my position on this subject further..

i have read about the drake equation infact i have posted on boards about this subject before..... need i explain to you again that these are only men who think of these equations with only a limited idea of what they are talking about. again its a theory i think most scientists will tell you that looking at a model usually is nothing like the real thing and it still doesnt suggest that god doesnt exist and the point i was making before about the complexity life is nothing like a rock...... or a burning gas sun or a sulpher lake on venus are its not only the fact that its rare its the difference in complexity between the two

Fysh wrote:

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only way I would accept the emergence of life as being indidative of a higher power would be if we found conclusively that there was no life anywhere else in the universe.

And a possibility is that it is. Look at our solar system. Even within that there are expectations that Mars or Europa may have, at some point, been host to lifeforms. And that's just the local neighbourhood. Quite why you assume that life is unique and special to the Earth when we've got comparatively little evidence regarding life elsewhere is beyond me. I'm remdined of the alleged joke about statisticians, mathematicians, astrophysicists (the one with the "in scotland there is at least one field with at least one sheep at least one half of which is black" punchline).

im open to the possibility that there is life on other planets infact if their isnt life on other planets it would be an awfull waste of space

Fysh wrote:

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to logic thanks.

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to my god theory thanks.

Fysh wrote:

So, us being alone in the universe matches your previously suggested belief in a higher power how? In a Stephen-King's-"IT"-style "God is dead" way? Not that I'm about to convert or anything, but it would probably make it easier to discuss this if I had a reasonable idea where you're coming from.

i was being sarcastic but obviously i have to be lame ass sarcastic with you, maybe if i think of some alternate unicorn notion, a kind of Vnicorn if you will but i dont have that much time on my hands. the words you should have taken out of what i said were "as far as i know"

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

But is logic not the only way we can actually use to try and verify whether something exists or not?

If we enter a debate on the existance of an entity, and leave our logic hats at the door what are we left with? If we recognise that (as per your analogy) we do not have the cognisance to form the thoughts that will lead us to the truth then why waste time with idle speculation in some field of thought that can lead us nowhere?

Once logic is gone, all we are left with is wild speculation that is open to argument from anybody with a bigger vocabulary. If we know that we don't know why would anybody attempt to understand the "truth", and then get perturbed when people are sceptical...

once all logic is gone you become human..... logic isnt being there. isnt actually knowing. when you leave logic at the door you are left with ideas.... i mean if you were christopher columbus for instance, would you have gone and sailed off to a place where noone has returned from?
a place that everyone says just drops off in to the abyss and you get killed?
i mean there was no solid proof that the world was round other than going there....... you cant comment on something with no solid, expect people to swallow it and mock people who dont just because you say so... all you can do is give an idea and have someone politely tell you their opinion on the matter

my point has always been and still is that there is no reason why someone cant believe in god cause they will be mocked for it, just because a bunch of lads got together and realised without any proof that their is no god and we are all just crazy ans should believe them

Fysh

Catsmokinpot wrote:

im sorry you sifted some crappy unicorn notion of the internet from your nerdy one track mind athiest internet gang to belittle my own slightly more rational ideas, although i wouldnt be surprised if there were anal fisting dwarves; the germans are pretty whacko when it comes to that sort of thing.

*sigh*

The invisible pink unicorn idea was supposed to try and highlight to irrationality of ascribing any qualities whatsoever to a creature in whom those qualities are not apparent. So just as an the colour of an invisible unicorn is irrelevant, so I think that discussing the properties or attributes of a god whose existence has no explicit proof is irrational. You are welcome to differ, but don't expect me to agree with you.

As for the insane dwarf named klaus, consider it a sense of humour test. And never mind, because you failed it. (although in fairness to you it's a pretty damn obscure test).

catsmokinpot wrote:

i have read about the drake equation infact i have posted on boards about this subject before..... need i explain to you again that these are only men who think of these equations with only a limited idea of what they are talking about. again its a theory i think most scientists will tell you that looking at a model usually is nothing like the real thing and it still doesnt suggest that god doesnt exist and the point i was making before about the complexity life is nothing like a rock...... or a burning gas sun or a sulpher lake on venus are its not only the fact that its rare its the difference in complexity between the two

You don't need to explain anything to me. I have a physics degree, as it happens, so I know something about scientists, how they think, and the Drake equation. No doubt you'll respond telling me about all the physicists you've heard of who believe in God. Get this :

I.
Don't.
Care.

There has been no proof presented to me that would change my mind about whether God exists. God, specifically, as opposed to just "phenomena we can't currently explain". Talking to me about how complicated life is and how, because of that, it must have been guided by a Divine Intellect does nothing for me - in the last century we have discovered scientific evidence for, and started manipulating in increasingly complex and sophisticated ways, matter at the atomic level. We have no idea if there is life on other planets; but until you have concrete proof that we are the only intelligent lifeforms ever to evolve in the universe, the "complexity of life" argument doesn't hold water as evidence for a higher intellect as far as I'm concerned. Believe whatever you want, but don't expect people to agree that this is the logical thing to do.

im open to the possibility that there is life on other planets infact if their isnt life on other planets it would be an awfull waste of space

catsmokinpot wrote:

If the alternative is to believe things without proof, I'll stick to my god theory thanks.

OK, apparently you are smoking pot. You have no actual evidence in favour of your notion of God, and yet you claim that there is more evidence for your cause than for not believing in God? Fine, whatever. Around about now, this is getting even more boring than it already was, since I'm saying "your statement is not logical; hold the belief by all means, but don't claim it's logical" and you're saying that logic is on your side. *yawn* already.

catsmokinpot wrote:

i was being sarcastic but obviously i have to be lame ass sarcastic with you, maybe if i think of some alternate unicorn notion, a kind of Vnicorn if you will but i dont have that much time on my hands. the words you should have taken out of what i said were "as far as i know"

Yes, nice try at the put down, you might even get a point for effort, but...how shall I put this....you completely failed to answer my question. You've failed utterly to explain what your perspective is, meaning that the discussion is progressing as briskly as the tomb, and you apparently feel that this is ok so long as you try (and fail miserably, I might add) to be funny. If you feel like explaining where you're coming from in a bit more depth so we're on a bit more of an even footing, it would be appreciated. Until then I think I'm going to give up on this less-than-entertaining thread. Yay. You've won. Feel better now?

Catsmokinpot

Fysh wrote:

*sigh*

Yes, nice try at the put down, you might even get a point for effort, but...how shall I put this....you completely failed to answer my question. You've failed utterly to explain what your perspective is, meaning that the discussion is progressing as briskly as the tomb, and you apparently feel that this is ok so long as you try (and fail miserably, I might add) to be funny. If you feel like explaining where you're coming from in a bit more depth so we're on a bit more of an even footing, it would be appreciated. Until then I think I'm going to give up on this less-than-entertaining thread. Yay. You've won. Feel better now?

im coming from an open mind......
completely forget about what i believe in

i unlike yourself am open to new ideas.

1.i am not telling you to believe in god

2. i am not telling you not to believe in god

3. i am telling you to be open to ideas!!!!!!

4. i am telling you that the belief in god is not stupid given the alternatives which are after all based on observation by men, the same men who through science have got it wrong who following the same line of "logical" thought have got it wrong before........

and i should just believe what they have said? just because you dont care???.. that is laughable

Dades

Look.

Nobody is trying to tell anyone else what they should believe. This is a thread on a philosophy message board. If somebody puts forth a theory (e.g. it is logical to believe in god) then users of differing views are going to argue against it. Not will the express purpose of knocking it, or converting your way of thinking, but for the sake of debate. I mean that's why we're here isn't it?

Nobody is mocking anybody elses belief either. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a frequently used tongue-in-cheek concept as a defence to frequently used claims by different minded individuals. Healthy debate is neither a witch hunt or mob rule. I just think you're acting a tad defensive, Catsmokin.

Anyway...

Catsmokinpot wrote:

i mean if you were christopher columbus for instance, would you have gone and sailed off to a place where noone has returned from?
a place that everyone says just drops off in to the abyss and you get killed?

The difference is that Columbus could prove or disprove his theory by simply sailing west. There was also evidence that led him to believe that he would reach the Indies. He didn't just attempt it because he wanted to believe it.

We can believe what we want about the existance of a god, but nothing we could ever do or think will verify it.

Catsmokinpot

The Atheist wrote:

Look.

Nobody is trying to tell anyone else what they should believe. This is a thread on a philosophy message board. If somebody puts forth a theory (e.g. it is logical to believe in god) then users of differing views are going to argue against it. Not will the express purpose of knocking it, or converting your way of thinking, but for the sake of debate. I mean that's why we're here isn't it?

Nobody is mocking anybody elses belief either. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a frequently used tongue-in-cheek concept as a defence to frequently used claims by different minded individuals. Healthy debate is neither a witch hunt or mob rule. I just think you're acting a tad defensive, Catsmokin.

Anyway...

The difference is that Columbus could prove or disprove his theory by simply sailing west. There was also evidence that led him to believe that he would reach the Indies. He didn't just attempt it because he wanted to believe it.

We can believe what we want about the existance of a god, but nothing we could ever do or think will verify it.

columbus had an idea, a belief that there was more out there, when the majority of everyone else around him thought he was mental, because apparently it was "common knowledge" at the time that the world was flat

you cant rely on your common knowledge even if you cant prove it

and what about the people who believed the world was round before columbus but couldn't prove it? were they all crackpots?

fysh was saying he couldn't accept the possibility that god exists

I for one find it very difficult to accept that the logical thing to do is believe in a deity who, by definition, is outside everything covered by the scientific method , whose attributes cannot be tested or explored by experiment and who, ultimately, there is no direct evidence for.

now again, understand why people would choose not believe in god but not accepting the possibility is ridiculous

scientists only have a slight clue as to what the hell they are talking about they still don't know what's under most of our sea's and your still willing to fully trust logic and science

and what do you mean a tad defensive? when someone gives you a different opinion about something which is contrary to your beliefs, all you can do is defend your own beliefs! so thanks for stating the obvious.......

nobody's mocking my beliefs? what's this about anal fisting dwarves then? please dont try to say it was a comparison

Playboy

I think the Atheist is open to new ideas but chooses not to believe in God because that is his choice and the information presented to him over his life doesnt convince him of God's existence. I think Fysh is a different matter. Fysh did a degree in Physics and has fallen into the trap where he thinks science and the scientific method is the be all and end all. If fysh cant apply the scientific method to something then it doesnt exist and anyone else who thinks differently to him is stupid.

Fysh

Against my better judgement, I return yet again.

My stance is, and has always been, that there is not enough logical evidence to convince me of the idea that there is such a thing as is usually described by the term "God". Your comparison to Columbus would only work if you found some way to go where man has not previously gone and find some proof of God's existence. I will happily change stance if/when this happens.

I'm not closed permanently to the idea of God - I just don't feel that the current evidence is convincing enough for me. You'll note that I have used expressions like "finding it difficult to believe" rather than saying outright that god does not exist. More importantly I must make the distinction that I certainly do not believe that God cannot exist - I would agree with the notion previously espoused that ultimately we are all agnostic as we cannot know for certain. My opinion leans away from the existence of God; I don't object to someone believing in God, nor does it make me think that they must be stupid for doing so; but I do take issue with the claim that believing in God is logical, for reasons I have already attempted to outline (although if someone really wants me to I can go into more detail about them).

I don't happen to consider the scientific method the "be all and end all", I just find it to be the most reliable tool for sharing and testing ideas given that, as a species, we are as yet lumbered with imperfect linguistic systems as a means of communication. I've yet to have anyone describe to me another system of reasoning that does not have its origin in either logical thinking or the scientific method, and am starting to get fed up of people telling me I've fallen into the trap of one way of thinking without explaining what they perceive the alternatives as being.

As for trusting science, I've said it before and I'll say it again : I trust science and its methods because when it doesn't know something, it admits it. When a theory is imperfect and a better one is arrived at, the old one is discarded. When was the last time you saw any major religion discard old teachings because "they don't really make sense based on what we know today"? More commonly there's an awkward effort to reconcile new discoveries with the old teachings. But science makes a point of questioning everything, and that's what makes me happy to use the method. It does not demand that I accept anything if I'm not satisfied by the evidence for it. And I think you're trying to ignore this by saying "but logic's a human construct", yet you've failed to provide any system of reasoning which does not either base itself on using the evidence you perceive from the world around you or the idea of forming a chain of reasoning using that evidence.

As for the anal fisting dwarves - it's a reference to a previous expression of the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument I used and a reference to an offensive but funny webcomic I am a fan of. I chose the image because it is a challenging one, and my intent was to suggest that if someone were to argue in favour of the existence of an unpleasant-sounding creature using the same arguments that are used to argue for the existence of God, those people would be scorned. In many cases I find that the arguments for the existence of God have the weight of history, tradition, and established major religions behind them - without necessarily being good arguments in themselves. So I'm sorry if you perceived that as an insult; it wasn't meant that way, although I know that my posting style does quite often come off as sarcastic and dismissive.

Playboy

Interesting couple of articles that i found

Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist determines is one sided. There are experiences that science and logic cannot explain and these experiences are real. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.

There is no God
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.
I believe there is no God
To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
There is no evidence for God
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.
To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the possibility of God's existence.
If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
I lack belief in God.
To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A.
I don't believe in God.
Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?
Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.
But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.

Fysh

Interesting in some respects (eg the argument about humanism, which I agree with in so far as I don't think that humanism can disprove the existence of God - although the problem is that if humanism is the examination of natural laws, and god is outside our reality, can the humanistic method be extended to examine the "outside reality" that god inhabits?)

However, I take issue with a few things :

This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

This also works the other way, meaning that no more can one definitively say that god does exist than they can claim he does not exist. Strangely, given that the tone is fairly rampantly pro-theistic, this part is not mentioned or examined in any depth.

If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?

What logical proof is there that proves God's existence? If the onus of proof is on me as the disprover, we go back to the invisible pink unicorn (or, depending on how offensive you find it, invisible psychotic anal-fisting dwarf called Claus) notion. My point here is that I don't think there is logical evidence for God's existence. It's faintly irritating that the article will happily try and use article to defend itself in one place but then claim in another place that logical arguments (eg humanism) are irrelevant because they don't apply to God.

I don't believe in God.
Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

I genuinely don't understand the inclusion of this part. It makes the whole argument exceptionally personal, without providing any indication of what the answer would be if the questions were asked the other way. Again, pretty blatantly pro-theistic, but then again, I've seen this before anyway. It's the level of argument that tends to get boring for both sides. (Yes, I know I've been guilty of making this argument fairly boring myself).

Dades

Playboy,

HOW could you post such biased drivel as that in the midst of intelligent ( ) discussion?

Okay so the fact that it's lifted off the CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY website explains why all pro-god arguments gloss over the flip side every time.

This is my personal favourite:

There is no evidence for God
This is not a logical position since we cannot know all possible evidences for God's existence.

UNBELIEVABLE. You cannot disbelieve the existance of god through lack of evidence - because there is evidence there that we just don't know about. Genius.

I'm aware every side must push their case but those arguments are just disingenuous.

Playboy

Atheist it’s a perfectly viable philosophical argument. It’s a very similar to my analogy with the dog. You can’t say no evidence exists unless you assume that humans can know all things and humans do know all things. All you can say is that you don’t know if God exists. Instead of calling the articles drivel try and discredit each point you find fault with. It doesn’t really matter where the argument comes from, if you can’t undermine the argument then you either have to assume you are wrong or that at this level of argument that there are no right answers.

On the same point to Fysh, no one is saying here that evidence exists to prove Gods existence. I pointed out that it is just as logical to say God exists as that he does not exist. It has been your standpoint that it is illogical to believe in God and that there is no evidence for God. I have always stated that my belief in a 'God' or 'force' in the universe is a belief based on the information presented to me over the course of my life.

Fysh

I think you're not making a distinction in what I'm saying that I have probably not made clear enough.

When I say "I don't think there's any logical evidence for the existence of God", I'm referring to evidence that I am aware of now. Which in itself is a subset of the evidence available to the scientific commnunity. I'm not suggesting that this is in any way to be considered as being equivalent to all evidence that could ever be available - I have said that I'm open to changing my mind on presentation of adequate evidence, whatever that might be.

There is a marked difference between "there can never be evidence to prove god exists" and "I haven't seen evidence that god exists" - it is effectively the difference between hardline atheism and agnosticism.

On a separate note:

a) it is rather disingenuous to post such an article without providing the source link;
b)I have already posted my objections or responses to three points within the article. How about you attempt to defend them, instead of saying that Atheist pointing out that they are very markedly biased (which you cannot deny they are; or at least, if you want this conversation to go anywhere you can't) is pointless. You've repeatedly referred to my adherence to the scientific method as me "falling into a trap" - why is it suddenly different if The Atheist refers to rigorously biased arguments from the staunchly religious field as being an equal sort of trap?

Dades

I think the problem with the arguments as a whole (must generalise - I've had a busy day) is that they can be turned so easily against the very belief they are trying to assert.

Playboy wrote:

Atheist it’s a perfectly viable philosophical argument. It’s a very similar to my analogy with the dog. You can’t say no evidence exists unless you assume that humans can know all things and humans do know all things. All you can say is that you don’t know if God exists.

I consider this a mind-bogglingly weak argument. This argument is a construct of those who would have you believe that something exists, despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever. We want you to believe in our notional figure so we are stating that you cannot know all the evidence that we also don't know.

I am always open to the possibility that there are things beyond our perception, but to try to define what we simply do not know is just pointless. And then to have someone who has done this tell you that you cannot believe what you do by virtue of what they have decided is just irritating.

Have a nice weekend!

SkepticOne

My own view is that we can't regard the existence of God as a 'fact' until evidence is forthcoming to decide the issue. In the meantime, if we choose, we have Occam's razor, Pascals wager, subjective religious experience etc. None of these stand up in the face of logical scrutiny but people are free, if they wish, to form a position on the question of god if they so wish or they can simply not hold a belief at all on the subject.

Playboy

Fysh wrote:

I think you're not making a distinction in what I'm saying that I have probably not made clear enough.

When I say "I don't think there's any logical evidence for the existence of God", I'm referring to evidence that I am aware of now. Which in itself is a subset of the evidence available to the scientific commnunity. I'm not suggesting that this is in any way to be considered as being equivalent to all evidence that could ever be available - I have said that I'm open to changing my mind on presentation of adequate evidence, whatever that might be.

There is a marked difference between "there can never be evidence to prove god exists" and "I haven't seen evidence that god exists" - it is effectively the difference between hardline atheism and agnosticism.

On a separate note:

a) it is rather disingenuous to post such an article without providing the source link;
b)I have already posted my objections or responses to three points within the article. How about you attempt to defend them, instead of saying that Atheist pointing out that they are very markedly biased (which you cannot deny they are; or at least, if you want this conversation to go anywhere you can't) is pointless. You've repeatedly referred to my adherence to the scientific method as me "falling into a trap" - why is it suddenly different if The Atheist refers to rigorously biased arguments from the staunchly religious field as being an equal sort of trap?

You made two points both of which I answered .. your last point wasnt really a point. I never said that there was hard evidence for a belief in God. A belief in his existence or non existence is exactly that .. a belief. It is impossible to prove or disprove either point of view .. I entered this argument to defend Catsmokinpot's point of view that it isnt illogical or stupid to believe in a God. Im not trying to prove to anyone that he exists or that I know he exists for a fact .. my aim was always to point out we just dont know and that we probably never will. Under those circumstances people make up their own mind on what they want to believe or not to believe. What I do take issue with is a scientific point of view where we are told that he doesnt exist. I also take probably a bigger issue with a religious point of view where we are told that he does exist and that we are supposed to live our lives in a certain way.

Fysh

Put it this way : the logical method, for me, indicates that in order to claim that something exists or that something functions a certain way, there must be evidence provided to substantiate the claim. Without this evidence, the claim cannot be evaluated in a logical manner.

So, when you freely admit that you don't think there's enough evidence either way to decide whether God exists or not, you get to a point where you have to admit that there is not a valid logical argument (which was the original point of this thread) in favour of God's existence. That doesn't mean you can't believe it anyway - just that the belief does not have a logical argument behind it.

Where my personal stance comes into this is with the use of Occam's Razor. Given the choice of "entity exists beyond our realm of perception and its properties are effectively unknowable" or "entity does not exist", the current evidence inclines me to go with the latter. I would consider this to be a logical conclusion to draw. There is no permanence attributed to this conclusion - evidence may well turn up at some point in the future which changes my mind.

In short : I've not seen anything that makes me believe in a higher force or intellect. Until such evidence is available to me, I refuse to accept God's existence as being logically proven. It is a belief people are welcome to hold if they wish; but it is not, to me, a logical conclusion to draw.