• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Debate on the existence of god

Mallow

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
16
MBTI Type
ISFP
debate (noun) The art of dangling an argument in front of someone's nose and hoping they will take de bate.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Well what you call "objective fact" shows a distanct lack of "critical thinking". Should I conclude that, like you, all science atheists have extreme difficulty with "critical thinking"?

Worry not. I'm working up to addressing this precise point shortly, although it will likely be in the NT thread.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive; Agnosticism, in fact, is almost always accompanied by either Atheism or some form of theism.

Agnosticism simply means uncertainty. Anyone, theist or not, who claims absolute knowledge of the universe (gnosticism), is being a goofball.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
–noun
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience

a⋅the⋅ist

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Well what you call "objective fact" shows a distanct lack of "critical thinking". Should I conclude that, like you, all science atheists have extreme difficulty with "critical thinking"?

I'm a scientific atheist as well. Do you think I have an extreme difficulty with "critical thinking"?

Somehow, I can only agree with Mycroft. "What is claimed without proof, can be negated without proof" (Euclide): That's called assertoric atheism.

And as somebody already said, the idea of God doesn't improve my life, I simply don't need this hypothesis to explain the phenomenas around me. But I won't judge you if you think it does. That's why this discussion can only lead to nowhere if either of us try to convince the other he's right.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Let t be a theory and e be some evidence.

Under what conditions does e support t? Sometimes consistency is considered sufficient, that is, if e is consistent with t then e supports t. However, some oddities arise under such an assumption. For example, suppose that e constitutes the discovery of a red sock in your underwear draw and t represents the theory of evolution. Does the discovery of a red sock in your underwear draw support the theory of evolution? Surely not.

The problem here seems to be that the discovery of a red sock does not test the theory of evolution. It would only constitute a test if the absence of a red sock would contradict the theory in question. We can, therefore, amend our assumption so that e need not only be consistent with t but not-e must contradict t for e to support t.

Suppose that t represents the theory that the Christian god exists. Among the many consequences of t is that everything which exists does so because of God. Also suppose that e again constitutes the discovery of a red sock in your underwear draw. Since the red sock in your underwear draw is something which exists, its nonexistence would contradict the theory that the Christian god exists. Therefore, e supports t, and in fact, any e whatever supports t.

The theory that the Christian god exists is, therefore, is at least as supported (or probable) as any scientific theory, since anything which supports the latter must also support the former.

Food for thought.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I'm a scientific atheist as well. Do you think I have an extreme difficulty with "critical thinking"?

Heh, no. Notice my sentence is a question and not a statement. This is more of a small dig at Mycroft since his posts often lump groups of people together. ;)

Somehow, I can only agree with Mycroft. "What is claimed without proof, can be negated without proof" (Euclide): That's called assertoric atheism.

Well you may agree with Mycroft's conclusion, but your post actually agrees with me in method. If you've been following our discussion in this thread Mycroft has been arguing that science can answer any question, and that reason cannot be separated from data. On the other hand I have been saying that the method of proof depends on the context of what you are trying to answer.

Euclide is actually a great example of my argument, because he is known for proving a lot of things and none of the proofs relied on data. All of his proofs were constructed with logic alone. :)

And as somebody already said, the idea of God doesn't improve my life, I simply don't need this hypothesis to explain the phenomenas around me. But I won't judge you if you think it does. That's why this discussion can only lead to nowhere if either of us try to convince the other he's right.

This is certainly a fair argument. The reason I believe in God is because that does improve my life. If it doesn't improve your life, then I can definitely understand why you wouldn't have much use for any type of faith or religion.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Well you may agree with Mycroft's conclusion, but your post actually agrees with me in method. If you've been following our discussion in this thread Mycroft has been arguing that science can answer any question, and that reason cannot be separated from data. On the other hand I have been saying that the method of proof depends on the context of what you are trying to answer.

As my final take on this matter at our present juncture, I offer this blog entry. (i.e. my response won't be in the NT thread after all.)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
My view:

Atheists bother arguing because they believe that they are "right", and that logic/empiricism = truth. Therefore anyone who believes otherwise is being illogical and delusional.

Theists bother arguing because it has been such an intrinsic, meaning-providing source in their life. To hear it thusly denigrated and written off is very offensive.

There is no real resolution to this question for either side (in that neither side will convince the other), but the debate will go on anyway. I have no interest in this topic whatsoever because it has no impact on how I live my life.

Almost--I believe that I'm probably right. There's a difference.

Many philosophical issues can be of great interest even when they have no impact on the debate participants' personal lives at all. Problem-solving can be fun as an end unto itself, even if solving that problem produces no useful results in real life. Flex that P muscle ;)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
This is certainly a fair argument. The reason I believe in God is because that does improve my life. If it doesn't improve your life, then I can definitely understand why you wouldn't have much use for any type of faith or religion.

You can make these belief choices voluntarily? HOW? Please share with me. I would love to be able to convince myself that my boring responsibilities (like work, etc.) are LOTS OF FUN, but somehow I just can't seem to really believe it no matter how many times I tell myself.

How do you get around the problem of involuntary beliefs/lack thereof?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
ag⋅nos⋅tic
–noun
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience

a⋅the⋅ist

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Sounds good. I definitely subscribe to both in equal parts. What's the problem?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I have often thought this myself. Part of why science and religion are compatible is that they satisfy different needs. One addresses the heart, and one the mind. But neither is happy unless they are the explanation for everything. Science, for all its truth and utility, is as much a religion as religion is. Because it is relied upon as a worldview instead of a tool.

Disagreed, and heavily. Science doesn't attempt to explain the unexplainable; on the contrary, its followers are typically annoyed with people who try to do that. If you'd seriously say something like "science is just as much a religion as a religion is," I think it's likely that you lack an understanding of the exact differences between science and religion:

--Science changes. It makes no assumptions about anything until it has observed evidence for them, and even then it simply makes tentative statements about possible rules of the universe based on patterns it has observed repeatedly. The certainty of science functions in degrees, like a parabolic curve in geometry. The more evidence we gather the closer and closer it gets to becoming certain, but it never quite actually makes that last step to 100% certainty. If new information arises that calls into question the validity of our previous scientific explanations, we must investigate--and sometimes, we will discover that we were previously wrong (or at least, not exactly right) and amend our belief system accordingly. If science were anywhere near as rigid as religion, we would still be insisting that Newtonian physics explains everything in our physical world perfectly, even though quantum mechanics has since arisen and shown evidence that Newtonian physics laws break down at the quantum level. Science is inductive reasoning.

--Religion does not change. At least not until a conflicting scientific view becomes so widespread that continuing to argue against it would threaten the Church's membership by making them appear so stupid that no one wants to associate with them any longer. So they bend over backwards, backpedal, bullshit, claim that God has intentionally deceived us in order to test us, etc.; anything to attempt to reconcile this new information with their utterly inflexible dogma. (See Copernicus and Galileo.) Religion starts from an arbitrary premise, creates arbitrary explanations for observable phenomena and then attempts to force the two to fit together in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. Religion claims absolute certainty that it is correct on all of its points, and not only is it hostile toward any attempts to claim otherwise, it historically has repeatedly, actively attempted to squelch any ideas which may contradict its dogma, for purposes of keeping the masses from discovering the logical contradiction. Religion wants to be deductive reasoning, and is very uncomfortable with any degrees of certainty less than 100%.

It is, of course, quite possible to misuse science as a dogmatic, deductive form of reasoning and try to rely upon it as an absolute worldview (Dawkins comes to mind.) This is rather silly. Any true scientist knows that his worldview is incomplete and is not only open to new and conflicting information, but in fact thrives on it.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I've heard that too, and I've even repeated it. But now that I think about it, I'm not sure it's really true. Science isn't really just about explaining how -- it's about increasing reliability in what we understand, and both the WHY and the HOW is part of our understanding. So, if you make a claim about the "why," you should ensure that your claim is reliable, just for accuracy's sake. Science is compatible with asking why as long as we're still interested in reliability. If we choose to relinquish reliability, and instead take things on faith, then science becomes irrelevant.

The failure of science to answer questions about why the universe exists isn't really a failure, imo. It's more of a discovery, namely, that there is no reason for existence that people are privy to. I think it's rather illuminating.

Brilliant! This is the best phrasing I've seen of this concept by most anyone. Kudos to you, sir.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The thing is, God could settle the debate with an appearance, but then he'd defeat his purpose. Catch 22. Once he [or we] prove him empirically, we destroy faith too, and thus the point of religion in the first place.

And this doesn't strike you as very, very convincing that the whole "God" thing is probably just made up in the first place? (KEYWORD PROBABLY)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
By the way, can someone tell me what exactly it means to be "spiritual"?

I am reminded of a Daniel Tosh (comedian) quote:

Girls in Los Angeles like to say, "I'm not religious, but I'm SPIRITUAL!" I like to reply, "I'm not honest, but you're interesting!"

So what is the difference between spirituality and religion? An "Om" tattoo on your back? A bunch of cheap knick-knacks from your local crystal ball shop? (A socially advantageous method of convincing people that you're more interesting than you actually are?)
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
It's pointless to debate about the literal existence of God. But it's not pointless to discuss whether or not one should believe in God, and what the implications of believing in God are.

I think believing in God leads to ridiculous consequences, so I don't. The "there's no evidence against" argument does nothing for me, because we could apply that to lots of things that no one in their right mind would believe in.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Isn't this as ptG said? In the past, the church is our fountain of knowledge... now science is replacing its role. Sometimes based on the stuff I hear from people, science has became the new "religion". Instead of quoting passages from the bible, people are now quoting the current big thing in science as the be all and end all "truth". When science is just the process of discovery.

The failure of science isn't in its methodology... but the public's view of science. The question of why the universe exists, or the meaning of life... you can't answer using science. But the public doesn't see it. They still try to throw science at every darn problem they face. And that's where the failure lies.

Great point! I'd also like to point out that any problem which cannot be solved through observation, reasoning and experimentation cannot, in fact, be solved at all. Sorry! The human brain is incredibly annoyed when it can't complete the conceptual picture, have closure and explanations for why everything is the way it is, etc., and that's why it invented God: to answer that which cannot be answered in any credible or reasonable way. Me? I'm all right with just not being sure, honestly. Some things are beyond my ability to understand fully and that's never going to change.

"You woke up and you knew that you knew it all
You knew because you said so
You woke up and you knew that you knew it all
A shame that's all that you knew
And I think I'm all right with not being sure I got everything I'll ever need..."
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
First you fell back on the old "separate providences" argument. When I countered that, you moved on to questioning the role of ration in the scientific endeavor. When I countered that, you moved on to questioning my definition of science.

Parry, parry, parry, never taking a stance.

Now you resort to splitting semantic hairs. (A tactic I can't help but note that ENTPs seemingly universally share a fondness for.)

I'm satisfied with my definition. Those who will take it will take it, those who will leave it will leave it.

Lawlz. That was such an INTJ response, and I really like it.

But you see, it's not so much the actual splitting of the semantic hairs that we enjoy so much, but rather the examination round your factification that convinces us so wholly and completely that these supposedly "semantic" hairs cannot actually be "split", per se, in terms of common metaphysical knowledge. Anyone who can't see that is just STUPID.

Hahahah. We're very good at bullshitting complete nonsense too, see?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think, therefore I am. Regardless of whether our consciousness are individual identities or part of one big thing, we can safely say we exist. To define what exactly is consciousness, humanity and higher powers though is a different issue. There is no solution as of this point.

I forgotten where I've read it from... but a theorist envisioned consciousness and cognition to be like a hologram. There are no "memories" stored... there's just the whole. And the individual details "recalled" are synthesized on the fly. Therefore consciousness is not an object, but a process. The self-awared thermostat which turns itself on or off depending on its monitored state. The act of self-regulation is consciousness.

Awesome ideas. I really like the thermostat analogy.
 
Top