• 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.

I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
A good post.
Can you discuss Islam fundamentalism with Islam fundamentalists?
No.
You cannot discuss religion with religious people.
The first principle of logic.

Well does that mean that you cant discuss religion with athiests?

If its resolution you're talking about then they can be just as resolute as each other. A lot of the time I think people are working out their own personal issues and often there's a lot of social psychology and dynamics at work when they reach their conclusions.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
That's quite a good point, but I don't see an argument in favour of the existence of a god in it. You can use it even as an argument for the non-existence of a god. Humans made holy texts where they wrote down their beliefs, their sense of awe, their moral rules,...

What I meant is this. Most religions say (next to a "love your neighbour" idea) that their god is the only one to worship and to believe in. Just look at the first laws of Moses: the first says "love god above all", the second "don't use his name in vain", the third "you should devote one day a week to god". Only from nr. 4 on it's about humans and morality. The same you can see in Christianity and in the Islam.
So god wants us to believe in him at least as much as he wants us to be good to each other. Still he doesn't send a clear proof of his existence! The sort of proof that can't be mistaken for an indifferent nature made by chance and selection.

This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.

If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.

And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).

So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.

If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.

And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).

Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!

So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?

I do not disbelieve in god based upon this notion that there are no trustworthy believers. I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.
 
H

Hate

Guest
I did not enter this thread to debate the existence of God, but simply to announce that the prophecy has been fulfilled. The Second Coming of MagnificentMind is upon us.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The_Living_Laser said:
If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

The issue there to me is that you have no guarantee that the two situations you are equating in your inductive reasoning are alike whatsoever.

You happen to know that the sea is only part of existence, and that sky and land exists. So you are free to state all the things you have stated about the sea. But you have no real way to determine if this world -- the land and sea and sky and everything you can potentially experience along with other human beings -- is all there is or not. There is no inherent connection. Just because the sea is not the total essence of reality doesn't mean that there is something outside of our own perceived agreed-upon reality.

So you are literally flinging yourself into a void where only faith can carry you aloft. Your inductive reasoning only suggests the possibility that something might exist outside of this experience; rationality only comes into play when we discuss whether such a possibility is plausible or implausible, and faith still makes up the vast difference between the two.

Even who we determine is trustworthy or not is based on our own personal values and standards and isn't necessarily derived from some inherent truth. So claiming that certain authorities are indeed authorities seems to be yet another self-spawned choice of one's own reality, rather than inherent and thus a reality that can be derived by anyone who cares to examine it.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.

If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.

And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).

So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?

You make some really excellent points and I think I've got to say that I respect you more for making this post that I have before now. If that's wrong then, well, *shrugs*

Trust is important and I agree with you that evidence is far from the only criteria involved when people are making their minds up, most of the hue and cry that I see denying the existence of God, attacking religion and expounding athiest or anti-theist models of evolution and science I think would continue if there where irrefutable evidence provided to them of the existence of God, even if there where irrefutable evidence provided for the existence of God in the often simplistic and anthropomorphic ways they conceptualise deity and divinity.

There generally a major kind of grievance, whether its with authority per se, religious authority specifically, historical religious authority (which isnt depicted in a factual, contextual or balanced way generally either) in some ways change within the family, authority, paternity and other norms have made it more difficult to belief too along with the abscence of trusthworthy religious leaders. The basic conceptual building blocks are gone or totally transformed.

One final thing I would say too is the whole thing about rationalism and logic, those things can be highly over esteemed and over rated and exaggerated in their importance, economics has begun to slowly divest itself of some of the more mechanistic rationalism and other disciplines are slowly catching up, the vitriolic angry atheism I see making a power play for the soul of science isnt entirely rational, logical and objective either if you ask me.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!



I do not disbelieve in god based upon this notion that there are no trustworthy believers. I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.

Crude sophistry? Really? Hardly.

So let me get this right, you disbelief in God not because of a lack of evidence but because you can think of or find no good argument to do so or "in his favour"? I'm unsure what the stuff about fish and sin is meant to mean though.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Believing our own propaganda.

Whether God exists is certainly plausible or implausible.

And also whether God exists is neither true nor false.

However propaganda is neither true nor false, rather propaganda is plausible or implausible.

So whether God exists or not is propaganda.

And interestingly the first mistake we amateur propagandists make is to believe our own propaganda.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
A good post.
Can you discuss Islam fundamentalism with Islam fundamentalists?
No.
You cannot discuss religion with religious people.
The first principle of logic.
I assume that, if people come to a thread like this, they would like to discuss. Of course they'll defend their opinions, why not, that's what I do too. I myself lost my belief because of lots of great discussions - and I'm ready to gain it back, too.

Even as a believer, I was of the opinion that I should have arguments for it. My reasoning was: "if I lose my belief just by discussing or by thinking about arguments, then it wasn't worth to keep to begin with!"

Another thing I've been itching to post here:

There are two possibilities.
Either there exists a god (or more than one , or goddess(es) - I'm talking really generally here, about super-beings able to communicate with humans and influence their lives) or there is no god.

Now people fall apart in three categories depending on which hypothesis they assume as true.

Agnostics give each hypothesis around 50% chance - "I don't know whether there is a god or not"

Theists assume one of the hypotheses and will change when proof is presented. "There is a god". That's how most human minds work - we assume lots of things and will only be surprised if it turns out to be false. We all assume things like "if I let a rubber fall, it will go down" and "if I heat this water, it will boil". So our theist starts from "there is a god" and will only conclude there is none if sufficient proof is presented.

So do atheists. Only they start from the other hypothesis, "there is no god" and will only conclude there is one (or more) when sufficient proof is presented.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.

We are all the ignorant fish.

The issue there to me is that you have no guarantee that the two situations you are equating in your inductive reasoning are alike whatsoever.
etc...

I was using a metaphor to illustrate a point. All metaphors can only be taken so far, because they are simply used to communicate certain ideas. I wasn't trying to assert anything about the cosmology of the universe.

Even who we determine is trustworthy or not is based on our own personal values and standards and isn't necessarily derived from some inherent truth. So claiming that certain authorities are indeed authorities seems to be yet another self-spawned choice of one's own reality, rather than inherent and thus a reality that can be derived by anyone who cares to examine it.

Human beings are biologically similar enough that you can reasonably say that some standards of trustworthiness are universal. For example I've never heard anyone say a disparaging word against Mother Theresa. If a person is consistently honest and compassionate and they consistently yield positive results in their deeds, then people will consider them trustworthy. It's not simply a matter of personality traits.
 

Arthur Schopenhauer

What is, is.
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
1,158
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Crude sophistry? Really? Hardly.

Guffaw.

So let me get this right, you disbelief in God not because of a lack of evidence but because you can think of or find no good argument to do so or "in his favour"?

There is no evidence of god; there are no worthy arguments that play in his favor.

I'm unsure what the stuff about fish and sin is meant to mean though.

It's a reference to the sophistry.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
For example I've never heard anyone say a disparaging word against Mother Theresa. If a person is consistently honest and compassionate and they consistently yield positive results in their deeds, then people will consider them trustworthy. It's not simply a matter of personality traits.

That's just your personal experience. I've seen people call her manipulative, among other things.

Not that I'm saying that Mother Theresa wasn't a good person, because really, she devoted her life to caring for the sick and the dying, so I approve, but just because you didn't hear it didn't mean it didn't happen.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I assume that, if people come to a thread like this, they would like to discuss. Of course they'll defend their opinions, why not, that's what I do too. I myself lost my belief because of lots of great discussions - and I'm ready to gain it back, too.

Even as a believer, I was of the opinion that I should have arguments for it. My reasoning was: "if I lose my belief just by discussing or by thinking about arguments, then it wasn't worth to keep to begin with!"

Wildcat is right. There's nothing you can say unless they want to see it.
 

Snuggletron

Reptilian
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2,224
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
10
Wildcat is right. There's nothing you can say unless they want to see it.

cyphergrin.jpg
 
Top