No God you say? Please read me.

[KarlQuigley]

I’m new here and will probably repeat previous discussions, for this I make no apology but beg your indulgence.

I have noticed that in my short time of being here that there is a strong anti-God attitude, which to me does not suggest scepticism but closed minds.

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a God and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of God is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

It’s easy to accept that life can form on a barren rock but not God creating life.

I propose to this forum that God exists and created life, the universe and everything.

Here’s some pre-prepared answers for you.

1> God always existed and there was never a time when God did not exist.
2> I’m not saying God created fossils or anything like that. God created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with God.
4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.
5> The theory that there was once nothing and now there is everything sounds like the acceptance of magic which any God worth his salt is capable of performing.*
6> Yes, I agree the Bible’s version of events are misguided.
7> I never once said that God watches over us and cares what we do.
8> I agree that the proposal is probably unarguable. I hoping someone will try.
9> No I am not and I resent the implication.
10> I know you are but what am I?

Actually, answer five is more an afterthought.

Karl Quigley D.A.
E&OE

 

[Phil]

. . . I have noticed that in my short time of being here that there is a strong anti-God attitude, which to me does not suggest scepticism but closed minds. . . .

There will no doubt be many quick and thorough responses to your post, not the least of which will be "where's your evidence?", but please don't say skeptics are close minded.

 

[brodski]

Welcome to the forum!
An interesting first post, but one with which I largely disagree.

Why is the idea of a perpetual "god" any different from the idea of a perpetual "universe", which the "big bang" changed irrevocably?
What is the difference between a non-interventionist, non detectable god, and no god at all?
The position you seem to be advocating is a "deist" position, which a number of well respected posters here advocate, the deep problems with religion only really come when people make falsifiable statements about "god", and even worse- when people try and tell us what "god's" intentions for us are.

 

[Dog Boots]

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a God and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of God is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

I think most people in here accept the notion that there may be a god. I do. I just haven't seen, heard or felt her or in any other way recieved any indication of his existence.

1> God always existed and there was never a time when God did not exist.

If you can provide any kind of reliable info on this, you'll be the first one.

2> I’m not saying God created fossils or anything like that. God created evolution.

4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.

Er....you lost me here. How do these two points coexist?

Besides, hurricanes are lifeforms!?

5> The theory that there was once nothing and now there is everything sounds like the acceptance of magic which any God worth his salt is capable of performing.*

Why not just admit that you don't know what happened, and realize that your explanation is the exact same - you just call it "god"? That's what we do here.

 

[Upchurch]

I have noticed that in my short time of being here that there is a strong anti-God attitude, which to me does not suggest scepticism but closed minds.

Anti-God or simply don't believe in God? Not believeing that God even exists, I can be no more anti-God than I can be anti-Santa Claus.

As for being closed minded, allow me to ask a question that you have not already answered: How open minded are you to the idea that God may not exist?

I am certainly open to the possibility that God exists, but I have seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion.

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be a God and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of God is just as believable as something being created from nothing.

It is not har to accept that there may be a God, but there is physical evidence for the Big Bang (which is not quite something from nothing, but I won't nitpick too much). I haven't seen physical evidence for God.

It’s easy to accept that life can form on a barren rock but not God creating life.

Again, it is a matter of evidence vs. conjecture.

I propose to this forum that God exists and created life, the universe and everything.

And, as Phil said, got some evidence of that?


And welcome to the forum.

(Does this belong in Science or in Religion & Philosophy?)

 

[Bronze Dog]

Early offense: "Closed-minded"

1. Evidence? Why insert a middleman?
2. Evidence? Why insert a middleman?
3. Evidence?
4. Straw man as a result of a horrible analogy. Evolution doesn't work like that at all.
5.The Big Bang wasn't something from nothing. It was a change of something (a singularity) into something else (the modern universe). Additionally, it was an expansion of time and space itself: There's no "before" before the Big Bang, just like there's no land north of the North Pole.
6. Glad we can agree on something.
7. Good. I won't derail the discussion onto that.
8. That's one of the big problems: You can't really argue about the existence of something that you can't define, and can't form a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
9. Not what?
10. [Shelbyville bully] A garbage man! [/Shelbyville bully]

 

[jmercer]

Welcome to the forum!
An interesting first post, but one with which I largely disagree.

Why is the idea of a perpetual "god" any different from the idea of a perpetual "universe", which the "big bang" changed irrevocably?
What is the difference between a non-interventionist, non detectable god, and no god at all?
The position you seem to be advocating is a "deist" position, which a number of well respected posters here advocate, the deep problems with religion only really come when people make falsifiable statements about "god", and even worse- when people try and tell us what "god's" intentions for us are.

As Brodski noted, there are multiple deists here. I'm one of 'em. (Although the "respected" label is perhaps questionable in my case. )

As stated above, my issue is with religion(s) and not with the concept of God.

 

[PopeTom]

I propose to this forum that God exists and created life, the universe and everything.

And I propose that if you some how manage to show that God exists that, by this statement, he was Douglas Adams and that he is now dead. Therefore, he no longer exists.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm finding it difficult to discuss your 'prepared answers' because they seem to be contridictory.

2> I’m not saying God created fossils or anything like that. God created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with God.
4> The theory that simple life forms first and then becomes complex does not hold water – to me anyway. All life is complex. Hurricanes, scrap and airplanes.

So did God start evolution, which evidence shows that simple life forms become complex, or did God snap his fingers and create complex life?

As far as #2 and #3 goes, this is exactly how I felt when I first came to this forum, because I was raised in a fundamental household. Evidence pointed out how irrefutable evolution was, but I was holding on to the 'God must have started it' theory because I had difficulty believing that my entire family was wrong in their beliefs.

The way it was put to me was this: If there is a God that started the Big Bang, and God was not involved from that point on, then why believe in a God at all? It adds an extra layer of complexity to the equation that is unnecessary, unless you just want to believe it for the sake of believing it. Occam's Razor and all of that.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I would argue that skepticism in the divine is entirely consistent with skepticism and scientific methodology and is not a sign of close-mindedness.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

source

 

[Loss Leader]

I never once said that God watches over us and cares what we do

So, what exactly is your conception of "God"? You seem to be ready to state that God created the universe to run according to certain physical rules and that he has adopted a non-interventionist policy since then. If those are your beliefs, it appears to me that all scientific inquiry into the operation of the universe is valid because we are only learning the rules God set for the operation of the universe. All appeals for divine intervention, miricles, karma, etc. are invalid because the physical laws are fixed and unchanging.

It appears that the type of "God" that you propose would be entirely irrelevant to human experience. There is really no reason to consider this God in our thinking, to submit ourselves in any way or even to reference him. If all you require is that all scientific papers end with, "And God set it up this way," you are not requiring much at all.

Let me restate. I am sure you agree that f = mv. You argue that it should be "f = mv + the grace of God" but you appear to agree that "mv + the grace of God" gives us the same answer as just plain "mv." You ask for a system where we say A + B + God = C but you ask in such a weak way that you basically agree that A + B = C. If that's the case, I think the math shows that God, in your equations, equals zero.

In other words, everything operates the same whether there is the God you propose or whether there isn't.

Why, then, would agreeing that God exists matter in any way whatsoever? I don't think it does. I believe your God can be safely ignored with equal result. And, unless you provide more power to your deity, I intend to do just that.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, just looked at this with a little more scrutiny:

7> I never once said that God watches over us and cares what we do.

Assuming this means that you think God doesn't watch over us nor cares what we do, doesn't this contradict the idea of a divinely directed evolution, in which God would have to specifically observe and guide our development?

8> I agree that the proposal is probably unarguable. I hoping someone will try.

It is only unarguable from a scientific POV. If you want to take the conversation to Philosophy, then you would be standing on firmer ground.

 

[roger]

It comes down to Occam's razor, Karl.

We atheists assume a universe exists.
You assume a universe, and a God capable of creating a universe exists.

You are assuming more than we are.


Now, that's a bit simplistic, but what do you expect from a post on a forum

For example, to expand your assumption more fully, you are assuming that the universe probably couldn't have been created on it's own, and so you assume the existance of something complicated enough to create a universe. And on our side, we are assuming that probably the universe could have come into existance on it's own, and, if there was a God, the existance of that God, uncaused, is in and of itself more complicated and unlikely than a universe existing uncaused.

We can't really prove our assumptions (otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions, they'd be facts). So we choose which seems most commodious.

If you want to posit the existance of a God that started it all rolling, be my guest. I can't think of any reason to argue about it with you, other than to point out the above. It's the people that go on from that point, and start making moral decisions based on ancient texts, and trying to force those decisions on those of us who don't believe them, that we have a problem with.

Well, you will find a few people on here referring to theistic people like yourself as "stupid". I don't hold that position at all. I'd argue you aren't weighing the odds correctly, but hey, it could turn out I'm the one in the wrong on that score.

 

[elaine]

I've come from being a believer in a god to not being a believer.

As others have mentioned, many, if not most of us non-believers, take issue with those who want to push their religion on us, especially via the government. I could care less what an individual's personal beliefs are.

And welcome to the forum .

 

[bruto]

Line 8 about says it all. Faith is not arguable. Enjoy it if you have it. Not all do.

 

[Roboramma]

First - life evolves, deal with it. Not only has it evolved over the course of billions of years, it's continuing to do so today. If it weren't we wouldn't have anti-biotic resistant bacteria, or bacteria that can digest nylon.
Second, natural selection is a very important part in that evolution, and the main driving force for adaptations that appear designed.

If you intend to refute that, I suggest you actually learn what the evidence for it is. Because no one - let me repeat that no one - says that these things just happened randomly by accident, like a huricane throwing a 747 together out of junk parts, no one suggests that. There is a mechanism, it just doesn't have any intelligence behind it.

But let me cut through all of this. You claim there is a thing called God. Great. So tell me about this God. What are it's properties?
1. Is it a he?
2. Can it hear my thoughts?
3. Does it care what I do?
4. Does it like Elvis' music?
5. Does it hate blasphemers?
6. Does it think ants are beautiful?
7. What temperature is it? Does it have one?
8. How big is it?
9. Where is it?
10. Is there anything it wants?
11. Does it exist?
12. When it created the universe, did it know we would exist?

How do you know?

I'm willing to accept that there is a "God", that's fine. But until you can answer at least some of these questions (particularly #11), your statement "There is a thing called God" means exactly nothing.
It is no different from my saying, "There is a thing called Tlaar".
And until you can give evidence to support any statements you have as to the attributes of this god, I have no reason to accept your assertion that "god" has those attributes.

 

[chriswl]

I'm guessing one of the key properties of a deist god is that he is intelligent. For example, it may well be that our universe is not the only one and that blind "physical" processes in some meta-universe continually generate new universes, and ours is just one of these generated universe. The meta-universe may have existed for ever. However, unless I've got the wrong idea about deism entirely, this meta-universe could not be considered as any kind of "god", being just a giant mechanism, no more intelligent or sentient than the universe that we observe.

For the thing that generates our universe to be the deist god it must be a "being" in other words it must make sense to talk of a mind here. This is a very peculiar assumption to make. A believer in conventional religion believes they have historical evidence, as revealed by scripture, of the intervention of a divine being. This is their reason for making the otherwise far from obvious assumption that the universe was created by an intelligent being. The deist has no such justification to fall back onto.

The heyday of deism was in the enlightenment. An interventionist god seemed incompatible with the new scientific view of the world but atheists could not explain the origin of the the vast complexity of the natural world. Hence the popularity of deism. Of course Darwin changed all this and we now know that the the early universe was extremely uniform, and thus extremely non-complex. There is very little for a deist god to have created. An intelligent designer would be overqualified for the job, and would be a much more complex thing that the early universe itself.

 

[roger]

I can't edit my post above - when I said "theistic", I meant "deistic", which seems to be Karl's position.

 

[Rasmus]

It is only unarguable from a scientific POV. If you want to take the conversation to Philosophy, then you would be standing on firmer ground.

Not so.

I wouldn't even grant that it is a philosophical notion. If it was, it'd be bad philosophy at best ,just as it is bad science.

 

[Yahzi]

It comes down to Occam's razor, Karl.

We atheists assume a universe exists.
You assume a universe, and a God capable of creating a universe exists.

You are assuming more than we are.

What else is there to say?

This should be the end of the discussion. To assume more than is necessary is to commit the first logical fallacy. What other reasonable conversation can occur after that?

Karl: please ignore every other post in this thread, and simply respond to this one. Because it's the only one that matters.