... Therefore God does not exist.

[randomturn]

there are lots of other metaphysical question which the presence of God provides possible answers for, which are not answered by your assumption of no creater.

That something can or cannot be answered by humanity today has absolutely zero logical bearing on the objective existence or non-existence of God. No one else in the world can answer the question how many times I touched my willie today. I myself don't know. Therefore God exists? The notion of God, by its very nature, can answer any question. Using this definitional characteristic to argue for the existence of God is circular.

Furthermore, and I think even more damning, is your epistemological selection bias. Let me try to explain what I mean like this: in the world of economics we have a concept called "price transparency" that describes the degree to which we can see and understand the myriad complex phenomena that jointly determine the price of a security. Apply the same concept to belief systems. We all have excellent transparancy on the existence of vast quantities of stuff, such as anything we can see or touch. Belief systems for the vast majority of things we believe in are empirical. Why? Because of the extreme transparency of the evidence. As evidence becomes less transparent, human beings become more willing to believe in all kinds of bizarre things. But the degree of transparancy of the evidence ought to have no logical bearing whatsoever on the truth value of a proposition.

Where does the standard of human morality come from for example? What defines me as an individual thinking being, with independent action, rather than merely some collection of particles which have had their actions defined by the initial conditions 14 billion years ago?

human ethics are nothing more nor less than the by-product of the marriage between evolution and game theory, manifested in such ideas as reciprocal altruism and prisoner’s dilemmas. That is, ethical systems are simply the game-theoretic "strategies" that happened to confer a survival advantage upon early humans and our forebears.

What "defines" you? Short-answer: complexity. At least, that is generally the answer when people who desire to believe in God ask this question. This is an inherently subjective question with inherently subjective answers that will tell us nothing about the objective existence or non-existence of God.

It is somewhat subjective, but I do not feel the existence of God is a harder thing to grasp than no God at all, and I personally find it more aesthetically pleasing.

So in the absence of the ability to make an intelligent judgment (due to lack of evidence) you abdicate all logical responsibility and allow yourself to believe in whatever you like? That is more than "somewhat" subjective. Again, it constitutes epistemological selection bias

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
In other words, this thread is becoming long-winded and boring.

Thanks for contributing.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"there is no answer because the question doesn't make sense."

Well, we don't know yet that the question doesn't make sense. What if one of the Big Crunch theories is eventually validated, and it turns out that the universe has probably undergone a series of expansions and collapses? As of yet, we can't say that the question is meaningless.

That makes no difference. Why are you so fixated with the concept of time? It is just like another direction. Do you ask yourself, what do you come to is we head off in the direction of Alpha Centauri for as far as we can go.
If the Big bang was really an ocsillation it just change the topology of space-time but doesn't change any philosophical arguments. The arguments presented would be equally valid in a steady state universe too.

--"Of course they are there. That was my whole point"

But you can't claim the same about god. If you're going to claim that he exists outside of reality and does not interact with it in any measurable way, then the question of god's existence becomes meaningless. Either way, it doesn't matter to us on that basis. (Note again, agnostic here, not atheist.)
If you assume that god exists outside of reality, but does interact with it, then you should be able to provide evidence. That's all I'm asking for.

Why do I have to provide evidence for a philosophical world-view? Even scientific notions are comtemplated when there is no evidence. There is a lot of work being done on the idea of 'supersymmetry' for exmaple. We are even building huge new colliders to look for it, but there is not a single piece of direct evidence for it.. It doesn't stop scientists wondering if it is true or not, or trying to figure out what it means.

And I thought that at least some of the forces had been strongly tied (the "electro-weak" force).

Yes, the electromagnetic and weak interactions have been partially unified. Basically the neutral spin-1 particles we see around us (like the photon) are mixtures of the spin-1 particles coming electromagnetism and the weak force. That is the sense in which they have been unified. But they are still based on different symmetries (electromagnetism of U(1) and weak on SU(2)) so they are not unified. (The strong interaction is based on SU(3) by the way.)

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Zealot


I'm sorry, I don't know Hinduism very well. Are you saying that the Hindus claim to have received an inspired message from their Gods, so that they could have a better life, ie, to prosper?



I don't think you would read the bible to figure that out, would you? Even if someone offered his time to help you understanding why is the Bible reliable, would you still read it?




I'm talking about the Judean-Christian religion, the first monotheistic religion to have historical record. You want to say that others could make the same claims? Sure! Would the rest of the known world accept their "religion"? I honestly don't think so.

It is good that you have your beliefs, but when I question them on some fundamental basis, you seem to take a few sources as granted and correct. And on them you base your beliefs.

I am presuming that these sources don't have to be of divine origin. The mere fact that there are a lot of good advices of how to live well and what is evil and what not does not require God as creator. The creator os such writings can be a human trying to uderstand of the world around him and trying to make it better. And on Judeo-Christian being the first, I think that Zoroasterism was some 500 years older, but I am not totally sure.

How come that you are personally so sure that all of these are true, is it trough study only?

Anyway an interesting discussion.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And on the concept of God.

The origin of everything might be God, and might not be, in our cause/effect universe there will always be an outside cause, or something that we cannot grasp at the very begining - the concept of infinity is not totally understandable to us either, as if it was from somewere else as well. Cause and effect do require for an outside cause if there is a beginning. However we cannot not will not be able to prove that this was a God or not.

The main idea of Gods existance before was the fact that he actually acted in this world, and people than could see him or at least acts that he did (they did - different gods for different cultures). The atheist idea is that this was all made up by the ruling classes to keep the workers and the rest in fear, etc...
Basically a clear deceat to keep themselves in power, - Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharos went a little further and proclaimed themselves to be Gods, and naturally every nation claimed that their gods were the most powerful ones - their existance wasn't really questioned most of the time as people could from time to time claim to have seen the works of God. For us now many of these phenomena would be understandable, like what sun is, or vulcanoes, why floods occur etc...

However even though that we are so technically advanced now there are still people who believe in God or some entity as such. I would think that many of those have has a personal reason to believe in an existance of such entity, such reasons are of "non-experimental" nature, like prayers coming true etc, all those little thing that believers attribute to God's influence in their lives. The others mainly believe because they have been taught to it, and some just say that they believe for whatever reason.

Non-believers can attribute those personal experiences into the realm of 'imaginary' or if something was trully extraordinary, what is rare, into the 'unexplained phenomena by science' jet. And therefore the need for God to explain something here and now ceases to exist. God than just goes to the area od maybe and as the 'original' cause sphere which doesn't have any practical or real purpose. God becomes just a term, and that is it to many.

However there are those people who still believe for them God is pretty much here with some hidden agenda for some - , one who has disclosed everything that we need to know abouth him trough some revelation like a book for example.
And there are others who do believe in his existance and actions in the world today, and in their own lives.

So who is right? It is good to exchange opinions, perhaps someone will find enligtenment trough that positive or negative. But there cannot be a conclusion. Unbeliever can get turned in an event that something extraordinary happens in his life that he can only attribute that to a higher force, and that does happen since some people do become religious. And the opposite works too, that religious people become atheist since they lost their belief. So what? Some say that religion is the crutch for the weak. And it is true that there is a lot of weak people on this world. Arent we all weak at some points.

But to discount all religious/ mystical experiences with the weak factor might be an explanation but not the conclusive one. If there was a conclusion we would have come to it long ago, since the age of reason is on for some 2 centuries at least, but there is still a lot of people with religious or mystical experiences around us in this age of science. Scientists not the less. I think that that fact (personal experience) stops the rational mind to run over the irrational faith and conclude the matter.

Perhaps if there will be no belivers in the time that is coming, we might conclude that there is really no need for God, or perhaps that doomsday (or some other revelation) will finally happen... I am waiting

[Bereta_Eder]

God exists and he told me to tell you.
Thanks Amen and all that.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by paiktis22
God exists and he told me to tell you.
Thanks Amen and all that.

I knew it.

Here we finally have proof, anyone disagree?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Let's see...
Facts:
1. I never saw one, therefore, as far as I know, there is no strong evidence of it's existence;
2. There is no need for it's existence.
Therefore, by the use of Okhams Razor, it doesn't exist.
I believe that puts the burden of proof on your side.
Unless you show me evidence of its existence, I can be fairlly sure that my reasoning disproved its existence.

Easy, no?

On the contrary, you haven't proved anything.

1. This is called anecdotal evidence. Useless for any sort of argument.

2. This is not how Ockham's Razor is used, or even what it is about. Ockham's Razor is only applicable when you have two equally plausible explanation to something.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Your right. The only problem is that there is strong empirical evidence of those facts.
Curious enough is to try and apply Okham's Razor prior to Magellan's Expedition or Galilleo Discouvery. You surelly agree with me that it will leed to the conclusion that they could not proclaim that the world was round or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Actually there were a lot of evidence that the earth is spherical. Consider the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclispe, or how an approching ship would appear to those looking at it.

As for whether the earth goes around the sun, here is where Ockham's razor can apply. Look at Geocentric system and all the ad hoc hypotheses such as equant that were needed to make it work, compared to the much simpler Heliocentric system. The simpler one is it, no?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Whould you care to elaborate on that?
I can't figure out what you mean when you say that a converted person does not uses the testimonies that contributed to his conversion.

I was saying that Apostle Paul did not use what's said in the gospels to popularise Christianity. As a matter of fact his version of Jesus of Nazareth is very different from that of the gospels'. Why?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Jesus alleged crimes:
- Under the Jewish court: Blasphemy
- Under the Roman court: Sedicion (said to proclaim Himself as the King of Jews).
I think that much is explained.

I don't know where you got that. According to the bible neither Herod nor Pilate found him guilty (of Roman laws).

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Which, I gather, automatically means they are lying, right.
More or less like nowadays newspapers: they describe what happen so that you understand what happen. As the survival of a newspaper lies on it's credibility, I must deduce, from your logic that all news are lies, right?

Ah, strawman.

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
The appearance of many Christian Comunities is an external evidence of the following facts:

Appearance of Christian communites where and when? Where were these communities? When did they first appear?

Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
And one interesting test about miracles is the one suggested by Hume in the link Zyu offers in this thread. It says that a miracle can only be proved if it's disproval is more miracoulous than that.
For me, it strickes as much more miracoulous that men such as Peter, Paul and the other Apostles decided to waste their lives defending the most wonderfull values Humankind as yet reached in one single attempt and doing that under totally wrong and mistakened basis. However, that's my interpretation of the facts

First of all there is no historical evidence for many of these people save Apostole Paul, so your argument boiled down to why Paul would go around "pushing" this belief if this belief is not true.

The counter to that is there were also many sincere and earnest popularisers of other religions.

By simple logic, these religions cannot be all true since they contradict each other. However, they can all be false.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Appearance of Christian communites where and when? Where were these communities? When did they first appear?

First of all there is no historical evidence for many of these people save Apostole Paul, so your argument boiled down to why Paul would go around "pushing" this belief if this belief is not true.

By simple logic, these religions cannot be all true since they contradict each other. However, they can all be false.

For your question, the first Christian communities emerged within 100 years or less after the death of Jesus Christ in the eastern Medditerranean, northern Egypt, and southeastern Anatolia.

And for your comment about the apostles?? Are you saying that the four or five gospels written by the apostles were forged by someone claiming to be an apostle??

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I was saying that Apostle Paul did not use what's said in the gospels to popularise Christianity. As a matter of fact his version of Jesus of Nazareth is very different from that of the gospels'. Why?

Where do you get this stuff? Where's the difference you're talking about? There's no contradiction anywhere! You seem to neglect to yourself that Paul preached in some places while other Apostles preached in other places. Yet, they were all alive by then, meaning they couldn't have a contradictory teaching!

EVEN if you didn't read the Bible, it's the most basic of the logics...

[soma]

OneFootInTheGrave - I think your first paragraph has done something that very few people have done in all of the God VS Science debates ever. You it the nail right on the head!!!! I've tried to say something similar before, but always got it wrong.

If everyone could read and understand that, then the theist/atheist debate might actually get somewhere

Here it is for those of you who missed it...

The origin of everything might be God, and might not be. In our cause/effect universe there will always be an outside cause, or something that we cannot grasp at the very begining. The concept of infinity is not totally understandable to us either, as if it was from somewere else as well. Cause and effect do require for an outside cause if there is a beginning. However we cannot and will not be able to prove that this was a God or not.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by soma
OneFootInTheGrave - I think your first paragraph has done something that very few people have done in all of the God VS Science debates ever. You it the nail right on the head!!!! I've tried to say something similar before, but always got it wrong.

If everyone could read and understand that, then the theist/atheist debate might actually get somewhere

Here it is for those of you who missed it...

I am flattered