What would it take to prove / disprove the existence of God?

[Flip McWho]

You've laid out the logical argument why God is timeless. I don't have anything more I need to add.

Yup. Though this really boils down to whether God exists outside of time or not, but thats a different kettle of fish.

Okay, I argue if he is omnipotent and eternal, that he would also be unchanging.

Yeah that works. However that doesn't mean the unchanging characteristic transfers onto Gods property of omniscience. Just because God can't get more or less powerful doesn't mean God is incapable of changing at in the knowledge department. omnipotent /= omniscience.

Concerning Original Sin:

Yes the germans would consider it there national shame but they are not requested to live according to a certain way to ensure they make up for that shame. We, as 'fallen' souls have to atone for that original sin (analogously national shame). Basically I just don't think it's just for God to hold us to original sin just because we share our humanity with somebody who existed (if he did) thousands of years ago.

Actually how does the concept of original sin coincide with evolution? If you believe in evolution then doesn't that automatically remove Adam. Removing Adam removes original sin.

It will change so many other things as well. I'm sure after even a hundred years we would still be grappling with the consequences of the intial contact. What if the aliens themselves believe in intelligent design, and their technology is better?

Tis all hypothetical, the first question should be in what ways would these aliens be similar to us? Sufficient to say by introducting aliens it'll be interesting how religious movements rewrite their texts to reflect intelligent life not of this world. As they are now they don't really allow for it.

I've heard arguments from natural law

Not a great fan of this line of argumentation, but different topic different thread.

The second point is far more salient. You are right that there are three positions: first that God loves us and cares for us, secondly, that God hates us and wants us to suffer, and thirdly, that God does not care and lets us do as we please.

Fourthly, God just doesn't plain exist. Thus we are not created as such. We do not have to work from the first assumption that there is a God.

As far as thirdly and its relation to the argument from evil I'm a great fan of free will as an answer to that one.

why bother with creating a universe if one has no stake in the outcome?

Thats the thing. What's Gods purpose?



Elok -

Yeah traffic laws but:

Also, most of the traffic laws are around for a reason.

As are most laws. Personally I would just prefer if all those laws were around for a rationally debateable reason rather than an arbitrary God one.

There has to be an end value to aim at

How about a beginning value to base it on? There doesn't have to be any specific aim to end at. Not for society anyways. An individual may need something worthwhile after all is said and done to make it worthwhile following rules but as far as society is concerned it doesn't. The morals are enforced through the judiciary. Though I agree with you concerning secular morals. However just because no secular moral system is perfect doesn't mean a religiously orientated one should win by default. Especially if you can bring doubt upon the point holding it together.

The group doesn't benefit, but individual humans are not the group.

Thats true, and the case concerning bastards is an interesting one. A fair amount of people don't seem to be like that though and society has methods of reigning in bastards as well







As far as Pascal's Wager Argument is concerned, theres also the factor of superficial belief. If you're believing just for safety purposes then its arguable that for all intents and purposes you are not a true believer, thus your ticket to heaven doesn't get stamped.

[Flip McWho]

Elok -

Further, a religiously orientated moral system only works for people who believe anyways. A belief in God is necessary to get people to follow. Otherwise you run into the same problem as the secular one. Why should I follow the morals within the Bible if I don't believe in the God that prescribed?

[Flip McWho]

All moral systems are basically only as good as their enforcer/enforcement method.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So how does this sense of wonder differ from the argument you put forth earlier, where the Christian supposedly says that a starry night brings him closer to God? Same feeling, different name.

Different interpretation.

Those who believe in YHWH interpret events to include their god. If you ask a Hindu he probably tells you of the great works of Brahma when looking at the same starry night sky. And an atheist probably admires its beauty without giving it an interpretation.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
All moral systems are basically only as good as their enforcer/enforcement method.

Argument from Morality is a very silly argument. It basically says that those who believe needs a Big Dude to keep them in line. To paraphrase Jack the Bodiless, "If it can be shown that your deity does not exist, which atrocity will you commit first - and why?"

[Flip McWho]

But they do. God as Elok said is the point behind it all. Remove the point then whats the point?

Obviously you must fill that with something, and thats where secular moralities fall in. If you remove the assumption that God exists from the bible then all morals interpreted through the bible have to be analysed in a rational way. Without God many of the morals become obselote. Not all of them of course but the ones that are left don't get their basis to some religious end. Everything about Christianity is centred around their God (or Christ as their way to God). All moral systems are basically as only good as their enforcer/enforcement method because once such an absolute [benevolent] dictator is removed as non existant the basis behind any moral system has to be rational and you can't get everyone to agree on this thus you pick one (reflected in the laws) and use the judicial branch to enforce it. Individuals can justify their morals anyway they want to the state however needs to have a specific basis behind it

[Vince278]

My own existence both proves and disproves the existence of God.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
But they do. God as Elok said is the point behind it all. Remove the point then whats the point?

Argument from Morality is one of the weakest, the Cosmological Argument is stronger - if you can call it that. It is weak because there are a number of obstables, all very formidable.

1. You need to show that morality is objective.
2. You need to show that such an ethical code could not be based on secular principles.
3. You need to show that such an ethical code does not come from some other god.

Those are just a few of them.

I have no idea what do you mean by "Remove the point then whats the point?" Are you asking what is the point of an ethical code without a deity behind it?

[Flip McWho]

I suppose here for clarity we must define what you mean by morality?


As for the last sentence. No I'm not asking that, I'm asking whats the point behind a religious ethical code without the deity. God is the point behind the whole religious system. God is the thing that weaves and binds it all together. God is the giver of the morals. If God is proven to not exist then it removes all that from the system.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you ask a Hindu he probably tells you of the great works of Brahma when looking at the same starry night sky. And an atheist probably admires its beauty without giving it an interpretation.

I think you ignore the thrust of my question. Why do we respond this way to a starry sky, regardless of our particular beliefs? We've ruled out evolution, so something else must be going on.

I agree that folks can interpret their response, especially between different religions, but that's not the point here. The point is that we do have this sense of wonder without any reasonable explanation as to how we got this sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. You need to show that morality is objective.
2. You need to show that such an ethical code could not be based on secular principles.
3. You need to show that such an ethical code does not come from some other god.

3. Is irrelevant. All we are trying to do is show the existence of God, not distinguish between different religions.

1. I don't think this argument is as weak as you put this. There are certain beliefs that you will find across different societies, that they all seem to share, even as you find differences. The question is not, why do these societies differ, but why should we see them believe the same things, even though they do not have contact with one another?

2. Begs the question. What's stopping you from saying that every moral principle has a secular basis?

[Ben Kenobi]

Didn't say that man should avoid proper stewardship, just that christians has used that part as an excuse to exploit and eradicate.

Oh, only Christians? Exploitations, eradications and extinctions have been the history of man, since well before Christ was born. If, as I have shown, proper stewardship to be in line with Christian beliefs, then I have to question why Christians should be singled out while others ignored.

Tsk tsk. The subject is human extinctions, so I find it odd that you drag natures extinctions into the debate.

Nature is far more cruel then man...

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because God can't get more or less powerful doesn't mean God is incapable of changing at in the knowledge department. omnipotent /= omniscience.

Depends on how you see knowledge. Knowledge changes people. If we say that God is in fact unchanging, then he cannot gain or lose knowledge. By the same argument, he ought to be omniscient, because if he was less then omniscient, he could gain knowledge, and thus change over time.

Yes the germans would consider it there national shame but they are not requested to live according to a certain way to ensure they make up for that shame. We, as 'fallen' souls have to atone for that original sin (analogously national shame). Basically I just don't think it's just for God to hold us to original sin just because we share our humanity with somebody who existed (if he did) thousands of years ago.

They are not requested? Haven't the folks who suffered from the holocaust wanted their suffering to be acknowledged? If it is just for the Jews to have the Germans atone for their sins even if they have not actually committed them, how can we be any different?

Actually how does the concept of original sin coincide with evolution? If you believe in evolution then doesn't that automatically remove Adam. Removing Adam removes original sin.

Actually, science has shown that most people can trace their ancestry to a few individuals, and that at certain points there have been significant portions of the human population killed through death and disease.

Tis all hypothetical, the first question should be in what ways would these aliens be similar to us? Sufficient to say by introducting aliens it'll be interesting how religious movements rewrite their texts to reflect intelligent life not of this world. As they are now they don't really allow for it.

What I have heard is that we are told God's plan only so far as it concerns ourselves. It is unnecessary to rewrite the texts to reflect the existence of other aliens, since the bible neither confirms nor denies. However, I am certain there will be those who will rewrite, just as we see folks remove the word 'man' because that it supposedly offensive.

Thats the thing. What's Gods purpose?

Free will doesn't necessarily imply that God does not care about us. Quite the opposite actually. Free will implies that we can love him out of our own desires.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Argument from Morality is one of the weakest, the Cosmological Argument is stronger - if you can call it that. It is weak because there are a number of obstables, all very formidable.

1. You need to show that morality is objective.
2. You need to show that such an ethical code could not be based on secular principles.
3. You need to show that such an ethical code does not come from some other god.

Those are just a few of them.

1. If morality is not objective, it is irrelevant as a code. Standards need to be uniform. I think the majority of non-sociopathic humans agree that there is definitely something objectively "wrong" with beating the handicapped for fun. Cultural relativism is an expression of how much we disagree, but if taken as a rule would require us to give female circumcision and Nazi eugenics the same consideration as any other belief system. If there is no standard to measure them up against, moral systems are pointless.
2. I have the ghost of a symbolic argument in my head but don't know how to express it. Note, however, that nobody's ever provided a secular justification that works, after a good three hundred or more years of trying. That would seem to make mine a strong theory, albeit not strictly proven.
3. I do? I'm not arguing "my God is right" at the moment, or even that my God as I envision Him exists, only that the secular emperor has no clothes. The way I see it, morality cannot exist as an ideology without a supernatural element. The road needs a destination of some sort, and natural ones don't fit it.

A couple of points, for both/all of my interlocutors:

*The role of the supernatural (we may as well avoid the G word, to avoid assuming we're talking only about the stereotypical idea of YHWH) is not limited to the punitive. In the majority of Eastern religions (Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism), the divine essence, whatever it is, is the goal that is reached for, with little or no avenging wrath element. In my own religion, I think a lot more about theosis than Hell (anybody ever read "The Great Divorce?"). This distinction is significant, because these religions (and I think most religions have at least some element of the transcendent to them--even Islam has the dervishes) work on a whole different model from physical government with its cops coming to get you. It really is a destination, not just an aversive stimulus.
*There is a distinction to be made, on a related note, between positive benevolence and merely not making waves to keep your butt from a beating. Keeping your hands to yourself does not strike me as the be-all and end-all of morality. Aside from most religions insisting on benevolence ("For I was hungry and you gave me food..."), don't we all agree that charity is "good," in much the same way as stealing is bad even when we could get away with it?
*Of course the religion makes no sense without its God element. But it appears to me that secular attitudes make no sense at all anyway. The existence or nonexistence of God is basically neutral to judge by physical evidence, and most atheists favor the "no" answer just because of Occam's Razor.
*You weren't talking to me, but I want to point out that the Catholic conception of Original Sin (inherited guilt, not just inherited tendencies) is not pan-Christian.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Oh, only Christians? Exploitations, eradications and extinctions have been the history of man, since well before Christ was born. If, as I have shown, proper stewardship to be in line with Christian beliefs, then I have to question why Christians should be singled out while others ignored.

Quite right, humans has mostly done with the surroundings as they had seem fitting, but christianity is the only one where the god has granted them the right to do it (that isn't actually true - north american indians had the same, but damn it if I can remember the source). Actually it doesn't matter too much if I may have singled out christianity. Elok's claim was that nontheistic ethic and moral would automatically would end up in abuse and extinction, where a theistisic ditto wolud prevent it. Christianity is an obvious example that this claim isn't true.

Nature is far more cruel then man...

Uhm, no. Nature isn't cruel - not even indifferent - nature just happens.

Unless, of course, you say that nature have a consiousness or are used as a tool of some superior creature. In the last case, though, nature is still "innocent" - it's the creature using it that are cruel.