God's Existence

[Semalsia]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']Yes, and that leads one to conclude that the physical world is eternally existent.[/quote]

Is that a bad thing?

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']How so? It's not possible that there a true religion or belief? Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true, but if there isn't a contradiction, then one or the other could be true.[/quote]

I suppose someone could be right by pure chance, but it seems to me very unlikely because the amount of potential religions is so vast. It would be like trying to guess the color of an object that you will never see. It's not likely that you'll get it right and even if you do, no one can tell if you got it right or not. So even if one of the current religions has got it right, there's no way we can know which if any.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 03:37 PM']Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table? Does lust inspire people? Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?[/quote]

All feelings are different from each other of course, but they are all still only feelings. How does the fact that love inspires people necessitate that it has divine origin?

Where does love come from? The core of human nature is equally filled with envy, hatred and mistrust as it is with love. I'd expect love to come from the very same place as those do.

[philothea]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1928686' date='Jul 22 2009, 08:15 PM']How so? There's much we can say about the world we live in. We can see and touch and sense it in many ways. My point was that it's only pointless to discuss something of which we can't know anything about. And that would be God and everything else of that sort.

[snip]

Sure, I do. However I could know directly about all of those thing, if I just dedicated the time to study them. It's not impossible to sense them and all those who do, show that by providing proof and evidence for what they say. That's why they are credible. Not so with God, since no matter how long I study I could never sense God. And neither could anyone else in the world. Yet people who believe in God and who have nothing but their own feelings to cite talk like God's existence is a truism. Now how does that make sense?[/quote]
Why do you say that religious people [i]only[/i] talk about feelings? Most religions of the organized, modern type (as opposed to natural/pantheistic/"pagan" religions) were founded by specific individuals, presenting specific doctrines, evidence, and reasoning.

Now you could say that the founder was a lying or crazy or fabricated, or that the evidence and subsequent development of the religion were wrong (or have gone wrong), but Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were not outgrowths of a bunch of us getting together and searching our feelings. These religions are very specific and independent. We have a whole topic going about the parts of Catholicism we have trouble with!

In fact, Christianity in particular is weird, counterintuitive, and very much contrary to the way most ordinary people would like reality to be. Not the kind of thing that people would just make up if they were inclined to do so.

Back to evidence. You can only say that you, at this very moment, have seen no evidence which proves to you that God exists. I can't guess how hard you have or haven't looked, or what you've tried. May I ask what evidence would convince you to entertain the idea that God [i]might[/i] be real?

(I promise I'm not trying to be confrontational, and I'm not going to attack you. It's an honest question which I don't find too many people willing to answer. I hope everyone else will be considerate as well!)

If any of you other atheists/agnostics want to answer as well, I'd be interested!

[dairygirl4u2c]

most of the time, folks in his situation just write off proof, eg miracles. they say it can't be proven. they say they happen to atheists etc too, it's all just chance. they go insane and pull a dawkins- start gasping at straws to downplay a mary statue that is crying. they question whether the statues ever cry.
i suppose one could argue 'it's not *God* doing these things-- it's some unknown', though that's also gasping, given thesists are the ones who have the powers here, it's taking the least obvious route to insist it's not God.
and, granted, perhpas it's not "God" like we're taught about in this place, or that place, but it's something to that effect

it's not until they are willing to confront and accept the evidence that they make any progress.

i know how they think. i'd think most who are objective thinkers have been there at least to some degree. one does have to sort out one's though, afterall. we're all blank pages from the beginning. it's only when ya stopping sorting, and start shreeding evidence etc, taht things go bad. (such as pulling a dawkins

Edited July 23, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1926456' date='Jul 21 2009, 09:46 AM']I don't know what you mean. There is evidence on both sides of the debate. For the most part, people are convinced by the evidence that supports what they've observed and learned in life. Nobody is unbiased.[/quote]

Evidence is not proof.

I agree that psychological dispositions influence how an individual views evidence, however that is not the same as making the criteria for proof contingent on an individuals disposition.

[Hassan]

[quote name='icelandic_iceskater' post='1927205' date='Jul 21 2009, 09:09 PM']Have you ever been completely happy? Fully at peace? Unable to fathom anything greater than that moment?

Be honest with yourself.[/quote]


I don't think so. Why would it matter though?

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1928057' date='Jul 22 2009, 10:18 AM']I don't agree with Dawkins, but I understand his argument.[/quote]


From what I've read i this thread it sounds like an adaptation of Hume's anti-miracle argument.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929688' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:17 PM']From what I've read i this thread it sounds like an adaptation of Hume's anti-miracle argument.[/quote]
Brit Hume?

[Hassan]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1928129' date='Jul 22 2009, 11:37 AM']Did Michaelango paint the Sistene Chapel because he had some bills to pay and needed to put food on the table?[/quote]

I thought Julius II twisted his arm on that one.

[quote]Does lust inspire people?[/quote]

The Miricle of Wine
by Meer Taqi Meer

Last night she emerged, a little drunk
It was as if the sun was out

My life I'd gladly give the wineglass
That drowned your modesty and brought you out


So I'd say it can

[quote]Love is genuinely unique from any feeling, drive, or desire. When we love something, we find in it more value than its material worth; when we love somebody, we find in them more value than simply the use of their body and mind and even the shared relationship. Not only are we willing to love and sacrifice ourselves in some way for that love, we are even seeking it out. If a person is only a physical body and mind, why is there a desire to sacrifice and love residing in the core of our being? Where does that come from?[/quote]

genes.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1929690' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:19 PM']Brit Hume?[/quote]


David

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929695' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:23 PM']David [/quote]
Brinkley?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='philothea' post='1928878' date='Jul 23 2009, 01:26 AM']Why do you say that religious people [i]only[/i] talk about feelings? Most religions of the organized, modern type (as opposed to natural/pantheistic/"pagan" religions) were founded by specific individuals, presenting specific doctrines, evidence, and reasoning.

Now you could say that the founder was a lying or crazy or fabricated, or that the evidence and subsequent development of the religion were wrong (or have gone wrong), but Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were not outgrowths of a bunch of us getting together and searching our feelings. These religions are very specific and independent. We have a whole topic going about the parts of Catholicism we have trouble with!

In fact, Christianity in particular is weird, counterintuitive, and very much contrary to the way most ordinary people would like reality to be. Not the kind of thing that people would just make up if they were inclined to do so.[/quote]

From my experience the thing religious people mostly bring up is their faith. And they emphasize it over evidence and reasoning. In fact, it's often said that you should have faith first and worry about evidence later (or that you can't have evidence without faith). To me that sounds very much like "if it feels right, believe it". Not really helping if you want to know the truth.

Now I don't know why the Christian (or any) beliefs and doctrines are the way they are. And no, I don't think some one guy just made them up deliberately in a afternoon to gain from others. And I know many people believe in it even though it hurts them very much to do so.


[quote name='philothea' post='1928878' date='Jul 23 2009, 01:26 AM']Back to evidence. You can only say that you, at this very moment, have seen no evidence which proves to you that God exists. I can't guess how hard you have or haven't looked, or what you've tried. May I ask what evidence would convince you to entertain the idea that God [i]might[/i] be real?[/quote]

Earlier I said that all events could be explained by a potential natural phenomenon, so I suppose the evidence that would make me entertain more the idea that God might be real would have to be an event that could not be explained by natural phenomena. I've never heard of anything that could be like that.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Semalsia

[Hassan]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1929799' date='Jul 23 2009, 05:09 PM']Brinkley?[/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1927131' date='Jul 21 2009, 07:58 PM']How is love any different from lust or hunger, and what does it have to do with the existence of gods?[/quote]
Love, in terms of its being an emotion, is not any different from the other emotions listed. However, while hunger and lust are spontaneous reactions to an environmental stimulus, love is a choice. Therein lies the essence of God. Love, which Catholics would say that God is, is the choice to do the best for another person, even to the injury or sacrifice of oneself. That is a non-natural response. There is no environmental stimulus which would cause a person to neglect their own wants or needs for someone else.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929685' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:12 PM']Evidence is not proof.[/quote]

Evidence can say many things. You must also consider the weight of circumstance and context when evaluating evidence.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1929685' date='Jul 23 2009, 04:12 PM']I agree that psychological dispositions influence how an individual views evidence, however that is not the same as making the criteria for proof contingent on an individuals disposition.[/quote]

Hassan is right. A person's personal perspective does not affect the validity (or lack thereof) of an evidential argument. This actually reinforces the idea that there are such things as absolute truths...just because something is "right" for an individual does not make it true simply based on that person's disposition.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if someone were to say God's existence is "next to proven" or something to that effect-- i wouldn't argue with that, maybe a few qualification, like any good prudent person, but that's it.

[philothea]

[quote name='Semalsia' post='1929968' date='Jul 23 2009, 08:27 PM']Earlier I said that all events could be explained by a potential natural phenomenon, so I suppose the evidence that would make me entertain more the idea that God might be real would have to be an event that could not be explained by natural phenomena. I've never heard of anything that could be like that.[/quote]
Cool, thanks.

Would you have to see such an event yourself, or would a certain quality and/or number of witnesses be sufficient?

One interesting thing just occurred to me. Nowadays I think witnessing the unexplainable is the most common way that hardened non-believers can be swayed. But the gospels say that Jesus worked all kinds of miracles, and that for the most part, they didn't convince people.

I wonder if it's because our society nowadays is so much more involved with science?