No God you say? Please read me.

[Loss Leader]

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.

I'd like to point out that I made much the same argument in a post that you ask Karl to ignore. I didn't do it quite as concisely, but I did it.

 

[Sagger]

Here's my interpretation of God. God = the unknown. That which is beyond our ability to comprehend, or what we do not yet understand about the universe. There is one God, and it is the exact same God for all of us, whether we be atheists living here on earth or aliens living on some other planet. The defining feature of our God is that we cannot know what God is.

 

[tmackean]

Karl,

I would characterise a "God" as an ALL powerful entity, watching over mankind in some way. You're actually arguing for Intelligent Design whittled down to it's most basic level; that the Universe was the creation of a guided intelligence.

You can't know whether that intelligence is still around, or perished long ago, whether it was biological, mechanical or metaphysical. Whether it was aware or cared about the creation of life on those clumps of dust that formed in its construction. Whether there was one, more than one or a million creators involved in the process.

It's all speculation, with abolutely zero foundation in fact.

On the other hand we've made physical observations that support the probability of a great outpouring of matter from some centralised point in the distant past. An explosion, in other words. It's still happening; all the matter in the Universe is still moving away from all the other matter. This can be measured (check out redshift). It's fair, I think for scientists to theorise about the physical processes which may have brought about such events. If those theories can be validated as possible, why bother with your Magic Man hypothesis at all? Who needs it?

 

[Piscivore]

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.

Actually, the reverse is true. Millions of people belive in god, without thought whatsoever. It takes all kinds of maths and experimental evidence to even conceive of a big bang, let alone "believe" in one.

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

Who believes life formed on a barren rock? I don't. I find that theory just as specious as the "god" idea.

 

[Piscivore]

Here's my interpretation of God. God = the unknown. That which is beyond our ability to comprehend, or what we do not yet understand about the universe. There is one God, and it is the exact same God for all of us, whether we be atheists living here on earth or aliens living on some other planet. The defining feature of our God is that we cannot know what God is.

God = Ignorance. Yep, works for me.

 

[drkitten]

Who believes life formed on a barren rock?

Let's be reasonable. Our current scientific understanding of the process of planetary formation suggests that at one point, the Earth was indeed a barren rock. (Well, actually, the theories suggest that it was a barren mass of red-hot lava, but that's still a form of rock.) At some point, it cooled sufficiently to form large masses of solid crust (even if they were still above the boiling point of water), at which point "a barren rock" is a pretty good description.

With further cooling came oceans, dissolved minerals, an as-yet-understood process of abiogenesis, and eventually life.

So, yes, life did form "on a barren rock" -- at some point, it was a barren rock, and then (through a series of intermediate stages, and eventually life formed. Or are you suggesting that I'm not building my house on a cornfield if the first step is to pour a concrete foundation where the corn used to be?

 

[Piscivore]

Let's be reasonable. Our current scientific understanding of the process of planetary formation suggests that at one point, the Earth was indeed a barren rock. (Well, actually, the theories suggest that it was a barren mass of red-hot lava, but that's still a form of rock.) At some point, it cooled sufficiently to form large masses of solid crust (even if they were still above the boiling point of water), at which point "a barren rock" is a pretty good description.

With further cooling came oceans, dissolved minerals, an as-yet-understood process of abiogenesis, and eventually life.

So, yes, life did form "on a barren rock" -- at some point, it was a barren rock, and then (through a series of intermediate stages, and eventually life formed. Or are you suggesting that I'm not building my house on a cornfield if the first step is to pour a concrete foundation where the corn used to be?

I'm just saying that there were chemicals present, and life is an entirely chemical process.

 

[Yoink]

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

So, we are faced with one problem: we know a great deal about the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang onwards. But we don't know much about the universe before the Big Bang. Was it preceded by a Big Crunch? Did it just exist in perpetuity until the BB? We don't know. Eventually we may, but for the moment we don't.

Now, can you explain in a few short words why it is helpful to look at that problem and say "an invisible "creator-being" of some kind made it happen"? Either you are proposing something utterly redundant ("there was some kind of cause--whatever that cause was I'll call God--even if god turns out to be some heretofore unknown aspect of quantum physics"), or you are throwing in a second, extraneous mystery about which we know nothing and apparently can know nothing in an attempt to explain a mystery about which we know a great deal and can reasonably hope to know more.

Without a scrap of evidence to support your "god," why should I lend credence to the notion? If I said to you "the universe was created by autistic-space-cows" you couldn't disprove it, but would it help?

By the way, the claim that there are many people who renounce the possibility of God's existence is a strawman. I don't know of anyone who claims that it is impossible that there is a god (or gods). But this argument is only ever deemed of importance by theists, and only ever in this very special context. No one can say that it is impossible that fairies exist, but no one seems to think that this demands an "open mind" on the fairy question. Ditto for the autistic space cows.

Finally, before your comments about the creation of the universe being "just as likely" as it's uncreatedness can have any weight whatsoever, you need to show that there is any reason whatsoever to think that the universe is "created." Show me some evidence of "createdness" in the universe, and you begin to have an argument. Without it, you're just playing word-games.

 

[jmercer]

Scientists and skeptics have no problem with the unknown; it's the unknowable that gets our ire up.

If God exists, S/He or It obviously exists based on yet-unknown natural laws, or (as is claimed by the religious) exists supernaturally, outside of those laws via some unknown mechanism.

Logic is only as effective as the accuracy and completeness of the information it uses as a basis for its starting point; likewise, science can only operate in a framework for which it knows all the relevant critical rules.

That's why I love threads like this one. Nobody can honestly say they know what they're talking about with absolute certainty.

 

[jmercer]

Without a scrap of evidence to support your "god," why should I lend credence to the notion? If I said to you "the universe was created by autistic-space-cows" you couldn't disprove it, but would it help?

This position has been argued here many times before. (Unsuccessfully, I might add.)

There is a great deal of evidence to support the existence of God(s). It is, however, considered 'weak' evidence - and rightfully so - because it consists of anecdotal evidence. There is no evidence of autistic-space-cows that you can point to - other than your own statement, of course.

However, anecdotal evidence is evidence - and even anecdotal evidence has value. (If you don't think so, refuse to describe your symptoms to a doctor the next time you're sick. )

There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof" - but let's not get sloppy by saying that there's no evidence for the existence of God. If you want to challenge the veracity of the evidence (or it's value), by all means, do so.

 

[Yoink]

This position has been argued here many times before. (Unsuccessfully, I might add.)

There is a great deal of evidence to support the existence of God(s). It is, however, considered 'weak' evidence - and rightfully so - because it consists of anecdotal evidence. There is no evidence of autistic-space-cows that you can point to - other than your own statement, of course.

However, anecdotal evidence is evidence - and even anecdotal evidence has value. (If you don't think so, refuse to describe your symptoms to a doctor the next time you're sick. )

There is a difference between "evidence" and "proof" - but let's not get sloppy by saying that there's no evidence for the existence of God. If you want to challenge the veracity of the evidence (or it's value), by all means, do so.

Yes, you're right that the word "evidence" means both "valid evidence" and "invalid evidence." If we amend the statement to say "there is no valid evidence for..." the argument still stands, however. Testimony of believers is self-evidently invalid--to accept it would simpy be begging the question.

Of course, in the case of the OP none of this matters as he does not argue for a God with any specific attributes or personality--his God is merely a creator who sets the machine up and then leaves it to work itself out. To say there is no "evidence" for such a God is fine because it clears out all the "evidence" of revelation, personal testimony etc. etc.. Ex hypothesi, no one was ever visited with a revelation from an absent and uncaring God.

But regardless, one can always substitute some other supernatural being that the interlocutor happens not to believe in and the argument carries on. Elves have their believers and their "evidence," fairies likewise, Bigfoot too etc. etc. etc.

 

[Yoink]

P.S., I'm beginning to think the OP is a hit-and-run.

It's true!!!

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I propose that light beer is a homeopathic solution.

It's true!

 

[Ashles]

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

Tell me why it is so hard to accept that there may be Leprechauns and to accept that the universe was created from a big bang is easy. Surely, the existence of Leprechauns 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 Leprechauns creating life.

I propose to this forum that Leprechauns exist and created life, the universe and everything.

Here’s some pre-prepared answers for you.

1> Leprechauns always existed and there was never a time when Leprechauns did not exist.
2> I’m not saying Leprechauns created fossils or anything like that. Leprechauns created evolution.
3> The big bang itself had something to do with Leprechauns.
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 Leprechaun 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 Leprechauns watch over us and care 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.


I know it's a silly example, but why is it any different to the OP? (We can of course substitute Buddha, Allah, Zeus, Invisible Pink Unicorns or The Flying Spaghetti Monster perfectly equally)

 

[drkitten]

Yes, you're right that the word "evidence" means both "valid evidence" and "invalid evidence." If we amend the statement to say "there is no valid evidence for..." the argument still stands, however. Testimony of believers is self-evidently invalid--to accept it would simpy be begging the question. "

Er, no. Again, if you think this is the case, refuse to describe your symptoms to the doctor next time you see her. Obviously, if you "believe" you are sick, the testimony is self-evidently invalid -- to accept it would simply be begging the question.

I think you're trying to make a hard line where there cannot be one. I will happily accept the testimony of an expert that a set of partial fingerprints match, even if I can't see it with my own eyes. I will happily accept the word of the old geezer in front of the country store that the rain will clear up -- after all, he's been living in this valley for seventy years, and I haven't. But I'd accept the word of the meterologist over the geezer.

 

[calebprime]

...

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.
...

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

...

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.

...
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.

...

Karl Quigley D.A.
E&OE

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 .

Maybe, since this is your thread, you could fill us in on what sort of being this "God" is. As others have asked. Conceptions may vary.

Many people here seem closer to a positivistic approach than an "anti-God" approach. Positivists think unobservable entities are simply meaningless, which makes them a little different from atheists.

Some other people here are atheists who believe that the concept of God is meaningful enough, and "he" doesn't exist. Along with this, often, there's an actively adversarial approach.

One argument not used yet in this thread is the one from evil: You know, if God exists, why all the suffering, pain, random disasters, etc. But you say that you don't claim that God cares about what we do. So maybe that's no objection.

Like others, I'm puzzled by the apparent contradiction between #2 and #4 above.

Just out of curiosity--if you observe your own thinking and body sensation when you think about God, how would you describe it? If the thinking is reassuring and the way it makes you feel is good, maybe this is no more and no less than poetry. But poetry contains images of...something, not nothing.
What is this something?

I could go read _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ by William James. But it would be more interesting to hear from a living person.

Poetry won't succeed in this forum, but I'm always curious about the "inner" experience of faith, since I don't have it.

What kinds of responses are you looking for? (elaine's good response gets right to the crux.)

Why subject your faith to debate at all?

 

[aerosolben]

P.S., I'm beginning to think the OP is a hit-and-run.

It's true!!!

There were already almost 15 responses in less than an hour, and we're over 30 now - that OP was like dangling a twinkie in front of a fat kid. Even if the poster was willing to respond, it's a bit difficult when you're so vastly outnumbered, and a new poster may not realize the volume of traffic he'd get and hasn't checked back in.

Nevertheless, you're probably correct.

 

[KarlQuigley]

Why did I do it? - - Hangs head in shame

Thank you all for your views. And thank you for the kindly welcome.

I apologise to all for the “closed mind” comment, which was meant as “closed mind as far as God is concerned” – I now realise, from the replies received, that even this is incorrect.

I just wrote two full A4 pages in attempt to counter your arguments – and I have just deleted them. How can I sensibly argue without evidence? Of course, I can’t and I won’t attempt it.

So why did I bother raising the issue in the first place? Well I have a confession to make.

On joining this forum, one of the first threads was from someone who must have had one those moments – one of those moments when you step back and look at the world around you and wonder “How is all this possible? How am I here? Why am I here?”
He (she) then had the audacity to post a message suggesting that there may be a grand design to it all. The replies, I felt, were quite aggressive and I felt quite sorry for this person.

Then I saw (didn’t read, perhaps I should have) a thread posing the question “Does skepticism make you smarter?”

Here is my confession for which I most sincerely apologise. I thought “What an arrogant bunch!”

I have often pondered the existence of God and thought this a good way to find out a little about you all. If I met with aggression, I would say my goodbyes and be off.

Now I have read your replies, which (except one) were polite, informed, intelligent and well presented. No hint of arrogance or aggression. Just sensible discussion and arguments. Sometimes passive and, other times, with forceful opinion. Perfect!

Thank you all once again.

Please, I beg you, do not think bad of me.

Karl Quigley – ex D.A.

P.S. I wonder if anyone left me a nasty message while I was compiling this reply.

P.P.S. So why the two A4 pages? Well I got drawn in by lively debate and really wanted to present valid argument and impress you. But I couldn't counter without delving into areas of faith and belief. And I wouldn't impress you with that!

 

[Yoink]

Er, no. Again, if you think this is the case, refuse to describe your symptoms to the doctor next time you see her. Obviously, if you "believe" you are sick, the testimony is self-evidently invalid -- to accept it would simply be begging the question.

I think you're trying to make a hard line where there cannot be one. I will happily accept the testimony of an expert that a set of partial fingerprints match, even if I can't see it with my own eyes. I will happily accept the word of the old geezer in front of the country store that the rain will clear up -- after all, he's been living in this valley for seventy years, and I haven't. But I'd accept the word of the meterologist over the geezer.

I can't begin to understand what argument you're making. The reason that a believer's testimony is not "evidence" is because it merely reasserts the question under discussion. To say "well, this guy really, really, believes God spoke to him" is useful evidence of the man's state of mind, but tells us nothing whatsoever about whether there actually is a God who can speak to people. To say "well, if enough people show up who say God spoke to them, then we'll start to say that this is looking likely) would be a gross logical error.

When I describe symptoms to my doctor the doctor is trying to determine both whether I am sick and what is causing my sickness. My specific complaints are useful evidence of what I am feeling--just as the believer's claim that God spoke to him is useful evidence as to the believer's state of mind. But if I go to the doctor and say "I have shingles, I know it" but the doctor sees no good evidence that I have shingles, my repeated and insistent testimony to that effect doesn't add a shred of evidence to the claim.

When you say you'll accept expert testimony without double-checking it you again merely highlight the question-begging inherent in the notion that a believer's testimony of God's presence is "evidence." We accept expert testimony because we know that the expert has trained in an objective body of knowledge (fingerprint matching may not be a great example of this). We know, in other words, that the expert could if pressed explain step-by-step how they arrived at their position on the basis of the evidence before them. But this is exactly what we are trying to do with the question of God's existence. The believer cannot say "well, I'm an expert in divine appearances, and here's how I know this one was authentic." All they can do is continue to insist upon a feeling of certainty. It is only if we beg the question--only if we accept the conclusion that God exists as our starting point--that we can start to imagine that there are such things as people "expert" in identifying "true" manifestations of the divinity.

So, in this case, the line is a very hard and clear one.

 

[elaine]

KarlQuigley,

Thank you for your kind comments. I doubt anyone here, thinks ill of you.

One of the reasons this forum exists, is for healthy, respectful debate. It doesn't always happen that way, unfortunately.

I hope you stick around. We have fun on this forum. Some threads are just plain silliness.