Doubting your disbelief?

[thaiboxerken]

What proof would you accept for the existence of a God? Simply a Theistic God and not any one from a particular religion.

Different theistic gods have different attributes associated with them. Perhaps you should pick a god and go from there instead of being so vague and obtuse.

 

[Gertrude]

First, I'll answer the OP. No I don't doubt my position regarding god. And that's because I don't have a position. I have thought about it and came to the conclusion that 'god' is not a well defined concept nor is it completely coherent. I think that there are many questions to be answered before we can define and postulate a god. I choose not to make these assumptions and therefore live my life as an atheist, but without any convictions. Absence of answer because of the absence of a question is how I'd describe it.

Dustin, your idea that we don't see the whole picture boils down to questioning the validity of the human observator and its knowledge/conclusions. Can I trust my senses and rationality? Is there more that I cannot grasp? The question is certainly valid, and one that I do ask myself. However, I believe it does not have much to do with religion. Sure you can apply it there, but it remains a purely philosophical question.

Now if you have other arguments, I'd be interested. But before we go there, I must critique a form of reasoning that I often see. I often read that 'evidence' is needed to accept something as true. And the absence of such evidence leads in many cases to discard to hypothese. In a purely practical way (psychics, astrology, magnet therapy and so on), I accept it. But on a philosophical basis, I must disagree. Saying that "there is no evidence for god" or that "I have analysed all arguments" and pretend that such a reasoning is a basis for atheism is misleading at best. Atheism is a gut feeling. No argument can lead to it. No argument can lead against it. Pretending that absence of evidence is a valid argument is a fallacy in reasoning. And pretending that we can analyse all arguments in all light is pretentious.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Both inductive and deductive, depending on the situation.

Give me an example.

Depends on the definition of "God".

God--[SIZE=-1]the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Reread what you wrote: 'All of this could be possible using advanced technology. Thus this is something you would consider "magic". This fits with Clarke's three laws where you're unable to discern advanced technology from magic.'

I am saying that applying Clarke's law does not mean that we should assume that something we cannot explain is magic. Indeed, it cautions us: that which appears magical may only be a very advanced technology. You seem to be saying the opposite, that we would consider a sufficiently advanced technology to be magical. We (skeptics) would not - we would assume it follows the physical laws of the universe, at least until proven otherwise.

We would PERCEIVE it to be magic. Magic is defined as "[SIZE=-1]any art that invokes supernatural powers" and supernatural is defined as "[/SIZE]departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". By definition an jet plane would have violated some perceived laws of nature 500 years ago. The point is, saying "magic" would prove God to you isn't reasonable since as you perceive, something could easily appear to be magic but is simply advanced technology.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Different theistic gods have different attributes associated with them. Perhaps you should pick a god and go from there instead of being so vague and obtuse.

God-[SIZE=-1]the being conceived as the originator and ruler of the universe.

What evidence would you accept for this being?
[/SIZE]

 

[Gertrude]

Can God be scientifically tested?

No. God is not a well defined concept.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

First, I'll answer the OP. No I don't doubt my position regarding god. And that's because I don't have a position. I have thought about it and came to the conclusion that 'god' is not a well defined concept nor is it completely coherent.

I've posted a definition I'm using from the dictionary several times in this thread. What's wrong with my definition?

Dustin, your idea that we don't see the whole picture boils down to questioning the validity of the human observator and its knowledge/conclusions. Can I trust my senses and rationality? Is there more that I cannot grasp? The question is certainly valid, and one that I do ask myself. However, I believe it does not have much to do with religion. Sure you can apply it there, but it remains a purely philosophical question.

If we can't trust our sense how can we deny a creator?

Now if you have other arguments, I'd be interested. But before we go there, I must critique a form of reasoning that I often see. I often read that 'evidence' is needed to accept something as true. And the absence of such evidence leads in many cases to discard to hypothese. In a purely practical way (psychics, astrology, magnet therapy and so on), I accept it.

You accept psychics, astrology etc? Or do you accept absence of evidence means absence of belief in?

But on a philosophical basis, I must disagree. Saying that "there is no evidence for god" or that "I have analysed all arguments" and pretend that such a reasoning is a basis for atheism is misleading at best. Atheism is a gut feeling. No argument can lead to it. No argument can lead against it. Pretending that absence of evidence is a valid argument is a fallacy in reasoning. And pretending that we can analyse all arguments in all light is pretentious.

If there's an absence of evidence then what justification is there to believe? Is there another reason to believe aside from empirical evidence itself?

 

[Taffer]

Give me an example.

I need to give you an example of deductive and inductive logic?

Just look at the wiki page.

God--[SIZE=-1]the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]

That definition is not sufficiant to determine if it is a scientific definition or not.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. God is not a well defined concept.

Let's cut the definition down to this...

God-[SIZE=-1]the powerful being conceived as the originator and ruler of the universe.

No "perfect" or "omnipotence" or "omniscience" in this definition. Just the basics. What evidence would YOU accept for such a being?
[/SIZE]

 

[thaiboxerken]

God-[SIZE=-1]the being conceived as the originator and ruler of the universe.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]What evidence would you accept for this being?[/SIZE]

Evidence that the universe was created. Evidence that there is a ruler of the universe. Seems to me that men are free to do what they want, only constricted by their peers and natural laws. You'd think a ruler would have an enforcing body.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I need to give you an example of deductive and inductive logic?

Just look at the wiki page.

I want an example of how you use it to justify Atheism. Or more broadly how you use it to justify your world view in general. An example.

That definition is not sufficiant to determine if it is a scientific definition or not.

Why not?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence that the universe was created. Evidence that there is a ruler of the universe. Seems to me that men are free to do what they want, only constricted by their peers and natural laws. You'd think a ruler would have an enforcing body.

This is nothing more than tautology. What evidence would you accept that the universe was "created" or that there is a "ruler of the universe"?

 

[Taffer]

I want an example of how you use it to justify Atheism. Or more broadly how you use it to justify your world view in general. An example.

Oh, ok.

If God existed, there would be evidence which could only be explained by his presence.
There is no evidence which can only be explained by the existance of God.
Therefore, the existance of God is highly statistically unlikely.

Why not?

By your definition, can God be detected using scientific means? In other words, is he materialistic in nature?

 

[Gertrude]

I've posted a definition I'm using from the dictionary several times in this thread. What's wrong with my definition?

You define your god as a creator. Creator of what and most importantly, out of what? Recall my thread "Why something instead of nothing". You can't just pull out one definition, expect it to be coherent and assume that everyone's beliefs is based on that definition. Imho no definition of a creator is really valid.

If we can't trust our sense how can we deny a creator? ?

I deny the question of the creator. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole point also lies on the questioning of our own senses.

You accept psychics, astrology etc? Or do you accept absence of evidence means absence of belief in?

The latter. I accept one method of reasoning because it has proven to work for practical cases (exactly like science). But I don't dare stretch it out to philosophical questions.

If there's an absence of evidence then what justification is there to believe? Is there another reason to believe aside from empirical evidence itself?

Why are you looking for a reason to believe? Why do you feel it is necessary to have a position? I can admit that there is a possibility even if there is no evidence (we're talking philosophy, here). I won't have a definite position on the matter and that is fine with me.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Oh, ok.

If God existed, there would be evidence which could only be explained by his presence.
There is no evidence which can only be explained by the existance of God.
Therefore, the existance of God is highly statistically unlikely.

Premise 1 is faulty. Please explain why there would be evidence if a God existed. How is it impossible that a God exists but no evidence yet exists for it?

By your definition, can God be detected using scientific means? In other words, is he materialistic in nature?

No. Not scientifically. However you didn't answer me.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You define your god as a creator. Creator of what and most importantly, out of what?

Creator of the Universe. Out of "what"? I don't know. Use your imagination. We're talking about a being who makes the laws of the universe, Why does such a being need to be limited by such laws as conservation of mass?

Recall my thread "Why something instead of nothing". You can't just pull out one definition, expect it to be coherent and assume that everyone's beliefs is based on that definition. Imho no definition of a creator is really valid.

Well that's the definition I'm using for this discussion. It's consistent.

I deny the question of the creator. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole point also lies on the questioning of our own senses.

Why do you deny the 'question' of a creator?

I accept one method of reasoning because it has proven to work for practical cases (exactly like science). But I don't dare stretch it out to philosophical questions.

So pragmatism?

Why are you looking for a reason to believe? Why do you feel it is necessary to have a position? I can admit that there is a possibility even if there is no evidence (we're talking philosophy, here). I won't have a definite position on the matter and that is fine with me.

I'm not looking for a reason to believe. I'm simply asking you, Is there another reason to believe aside from empirical evidence itself? Perhaps pragmatism?

 

[Taffer]

Premise 1 is faulty. Please explain why there would be evidence if a God existed.

Because if there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe in his existence.

How is it impossible that a God exists but no evidence yet exists for it?

I didn't say impossible, did I? I said "hightly statistically unlikely". Don't put words in my mouth.

No. Not scientifically. However you didn't answer me.

In that case, it is not a scientific principle.

 

[Gertrude]

Let's cut the definition down to this...

God-[SIZE=-1]the powerful being conceived as the originator and ruler of the universe.

No "perfect" or "omnipotence" or "omniscience" in this definition. Just the basics. What evidence would YOU accept for such a being?
[/SIZE]

Define "being". (The laws of physics in themselves could otherwise satisfy your definition, in which case I don't have to be convinced.)Define "originator". (Did god create something out of nothing. If so, 'nothing' is also not a valid concept. If not, then there was already something. This whole 'originator' idea is imho leading nowhere) Define "ruler". (again: laws of physics)

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Maybe the only one who can employ magic is God and he has simply failed to do so as of yet. I don't see how this could mean anything.

There are plenty of instances in holy books where godlike figures use magic or rely upon magic. Universally, every one is mythical and has no basis in reality.

"Time Stop" I can't decipher the meaning of.

Time is completely stopped in the local vicinity.

"Gate" could simply be a worm hole. It may be possible in the future for scientists to create worm-holes for transportation of objects. Scientists are already working on ways to develop wormholes.

A Gate is not a wormhole. The spell "Teleport" might be covered by a wormhole, but a Gate opens a portal to where demons or elementals or angels live. I'd like to see any form of technology duplicate that!

"Resurrection" means raising the dead. I also don't doubt that in the future scientists will be able to reanimate corpses of recently deceased individuals or even totally re-work their decayed parts using computers.

No, Dustin. The spell "Resurrection" means I can take a human skull, bare of flesh and empty, over 200 years old, and bring that person completely back to life, with all their memories and personality intact. No technology could do that. Sufficiently advanced technology could create a simulacrum or copy, but it couldn't resurrect someone.

All of this could be possible using advanced technology. Thus this is something you would consider "magic". This fits with Clarke's three laws where you're unable to discern advanced technology from magic. So I repeat, If Magic wouldn't be direct evidence for a God then what would you accept as evidence for a God? If you can't even decide what evidence you would accept for a God how can you possibly know what wouldn't be evidence for a God?

Again, Dustin, no. You are being deliberately obtuse, and are deliberately misunderstanding me. No technology, no matter how advanced, can duplicate the examples of magic I have given.

How about you offer up some of these new arguments of yours?

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Arguments can be evidence if the premises used in the arguments are factual.

Without knowing what these arguments are, we can't decide or discuss their factual basis.

Cheers,
TGHO