By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

But, they don't prove the existence of a god.  Again, if you accept the premises, which I do not, they prove a cause.  There is no real justification for calling that cause god.

If you have an argument that actually does prove god I'd be open to it.  To my knowledge there has yet to be a sound one.

https://youtu.be/zYFUP_vZUCU

Also, if you're interested there's a good video of a PHD in philosophy discussing the Cosmological argument.

I do not expect these arguments to be accept as definitive arguments to God's existance by most people. At the very least, I hope people understand the subject matter is more complicated then "God doesn't exist because no proof".

And if you want to hear a very good inconclusive debate by two gentleman on the subject: (Copleston vs Bertrand Russel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

I don't think we can say God doesn't exist because there is no proof.  However, we are very justified in saying we are justified in not believing god exists because there is no proof.

I've obviously heard of Russel but never actually heard him speak, so thanks for the link.  I'll put it on my watch list.

mZuzek said:
setsunatenshi said:

Argument from ignorance is a classic logical fallacy (e. g. i can't see how X was made, therefore it must have been Y).

But you really showed a fantastic example of self ownage right there buddy :) 

Don't worry, unlike you, I'm not coming here with the intent of owning anyone. I never once force my beliefs on other people, in fact I don't force my beliefs on myself either - meaning I keep an open mind because I realize I, as any human being, cannot know the ultimate truth to most of the mysteries in the universe. Sadly, some people will force their own beliefs as truth and will try to either ridicule or punish those who don't follow the same thought process, and that can be both extremist Catholic people, or atheists such as you... or other things, too. My point is, I would never say "I can't see how X was made, therefore it must have been Y" as you imply, but I can definitely say it "might have been Y".

Edit: also, sorry for the delayed response, I was busy playing a really awesome game about gods and demons.

Well, we could in almost any circumstance say "it might have been Y", but that's a pretty meaningless statement.  Unless we could say "we have a good reason to think it was Y", then it's really pointless to consider Y as a possibility.



Around the Network
setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
mZuzek said:
setsunatenshi said:

Argument from ignorance is a classic logical fallacy (e. g. i can't see how X was made, therefore it must have been Y).

But you really showed a fantastic example of self ownage right there buddy :) 

Don't worry, unlike you, I'm not coming here with the intent of owning anyone. I never once force my beliefs on other people, in fact I don't force my beliefs on myself either - meaning I keep an open mind because I realize I, as any human being, cannot know the ultimate truth to most of the mysteries in the universe. Sadly, some people will force their own beliefs as truth and will try to either ridicule or punish those who don't follow the same thought process, and that can be both extremist Catholic people, or atheists such as you... or other things, too. My point is, I would never say "I can't see how X was made, therefore it must have been Y" as you imply, but I can definitely say it "might have been Y".

Edit: also, sorry for the delayed response, I was busy playing a really awesome game about gods and demons.

ironic that you didn't want to "own" anything or anyone and you still owned yourself by assuming I was insulting someone with the name of a logic fallacy lol. then even more ironic you begin to insult me due to your own ignorance of the name of this fallacy :)

 

i didn't ridicule and didn't punish anyone for thinking differently, i have no idea why you would have that impression just from me being an atheist. being an atheist only means i'm noy buying what others are selling, nothing else. 

 

and finally on the only on topic point you brought, yeah it "might" have been Y, but first you would need to demonstrate Y is even real. that logical fallacy isn't only applied to religious debates, could be as simple as "i can't see how that person knew I had a brother, he must be psychic" 



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I'm not going to make it easy for you, I'm curious which premise of the cosmological argument you found faulty since you stated it first.

interesting why you think you would make it "easy" for me by stating your own argument, but ok I'll humor you this time:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

 

I'm assuming this is your argument since you didn't want to state it for some weird reason (perhaps to move goalposts later on). 

 

1st premise stating that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not even true to the best of our knowledge. 

 

without even going to quantum physics where observations show particles popping into existence from non existence, you would have no basis to support the first claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

 

another premise that needs some backing is the one claiming the universe began to exist. what can you show me to support that claim? as far as we know time is a property of the universe, if there was no time outside the universe, then by necessity the universe always was. it never "began to exist" 

 

is it enough for now? 

 

better state your own argument because this one is dead already

Then prepare yourself because I'm a necromancer ;)

Whatever exists has a cause is very much true. Everything is at least tracable back to the ultimate contingent event that is the big bang.

Secondly, virtual particles are fluctuations of particles. They suddenly and temporarily adopt properties they shouldn't really have, but they do not "pop into existence from nothingness" That would contradict the principle of the conservation of mass.

One of my earlier points exactly. If there was not time before the universe, then our "0 hour" of time is our point of existance in the universe. It's a natural numbers row which has a ver nice, clear and defined beginning.



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I do not expect these arguments to be accept as definitive arguments to God's existance by most people. At the very least, I hope people understand the subject matter is more complicated then "God doesn't exist because no proof".

And if you want to hear a very good inconclusive debate by two gentleman on the subject: (Copleston vs Bertrand Russel)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E

I don't think we can say God doesn't exist because there is no proof.  However, we are very justified in saying we are justified in not believing god exists because there is no proof.

I've obviously heard of Russel but never actually heard him speak, so thanks for the link.  I'll put it on my watch list.

Of course there is much justification for not believing as well. Just goes to show how inconclusive this all still is. (which doesn't mean philosophizing about it is useless).



JWeinCom on 23 August 2018
mZuzek said:
JWeinCom said:

Well, we could in almost any circumstance say "it might have been Y", but that's a pretty meaningless statement.  Unless we could say "we have a good reason to think it was Y", then it's really pointless to consider Y as a possibility.

Of course it's meaningless, this whole debate is meaningless because there is no side that will come up with an answer or even a solid hint for one. Because of this, everyone can just have their own beliefs and assumptions, and no one's either right or wrong about them - the only ones who are wrong are those who try to force other people to think the same way.

These beliefs can have very real impacts on human lives, so they are very meaningful.  And while everyone can have their own beliefs, those beliefs are in fact correct or incorrect.  There is a god, or there is not.  He wants us to mutilate the genitals of females, or he does not..  These are positions where there is a definitive answer.  We may not be able to find the answer, but we can evaluate whether there is good reason to believe they are true or not.  And it's a pretty important endeavor.

WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't think we can say God doesn't exist because there is no proof.  However, we are very justified in saying we are justified in not believing god exists because there is no proof.

I've obviously heard of Russel but never actually heard him speak, so thanks for the link.  I'll put it on my watch list.

Of course there is much justification for not believing as well. Just goes to show how inconclusive this all still is. (which doesn't mean philosophizing about it is useless).

I'm kind of confused... Can you believe that not believing and believing are both justified positions?  That seems contradictory.  



Around the Network
setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

interesting why you think you would make it "easy" for me by stating your own argument, but ok I'll humor you this time:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

 

I'm assuming this is your argument since you didn't want to state it for some weird reason (perhaps to move goalposts later on). 

 

1st premise stating that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not even true to the best of our knowledge. 

 

without even going to quantum physics where observations show particles popping into existence from non existence, you would have no basis to support the first claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

 

another premise that needs some backing is the one claiming the universe began to exist. what can you show me to support that claim? as far as we know time is a property of the universe, if there was no time outside the universe, then by necessity the universe always was. it never "began to exist" 

 

is it enough for now? 

 

better state your own argument because this one is dead already

Then prepare yourself because I'm a necromancer ;)

1)Whatever exists has a cause is very much true. Everything is at least tracable back to the ultimate contingent event that is the big bang.

2)Secondly, virtual particles are fluctuations of particles. They suddenly and temporarily adopt properties they shouldn't really have, but they do not "pop into existence from nothingness" 3)That would contradict the principle of the conservation of mass.

4)One of my earlier points exactly. If there was not time before the universe, then our "0 hour" of time is our point of existance in the universe. It's a natural numbers row which has a ver nice, clear and defined beginning.

1) citation needed, just because everything you can see with your eyes has a "cause" doesn't mean everything has a cause.

2) We don't really know what they are, we do know they interfere with other particles (therefore they exist) and yet have no cause we can ascertain. So in that sense, yes, they do"pop into existence from nothingness"

3) yes it does, which is why these particles disappear into the nothingness (unstable and their existence is not sustained in the universe). Therefore the conservation of energy/mass is maintained

4) there is no cause if there is no time. a cause requires time to be existent. If the existence of the universe and time are interlinked, then by necessity, the universe has had no cause. This falsifies the final premise in that argument.

 

Cheque

 

and mate :)



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Of course there is much justification for not believing as well. Just goes to show how inconclusive this all still is. (which doesn't mean philosophizing about it is useless).

I'm kind of confused... Can you believe that not believing and believing are both justified positions?  That seems contradictory.  

I believe God exists (due to personal experience and the arguments I've researched). I believe there are good arguments for believing. But it would be presumtuous of me to claim I can at the same time disprove all atheistic arguments and do so decisively. I have an awnser for most of them, but to say I can fundamently destroy them? No. If I would make it my lives work, perhaps I could uproot one or two, but since I'm a more positively inclined person, I'd rather strengthen religious arguments instead. Since I also believe these arguments are not perfect (which does not mean they're false).



setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
mZuzek said:
setsunatenshi said:

and finally on the only on topic point you brought, yeah it "might" have been Y, but first you would need to demonstrate Y is even real. that logical fallacy isn't only applied to religious debates, could be as simple as "i can't see how that person knew I had a brother, he must be psychic" 

I can't say I understood most of what you were trying to say, but anyway. Why do I need to demonstrate Y is real? If I can't demonstrate it is, and you can't demonstrate it isn't, as long as we're not forcing anyone to think about it a certain way, we're allowed to believe it either does or doesn't. There's no logical fallacy here, only a guy who accepts that the unknown is, indeed, unknown.

in the context of a theological argument the believer is posing a positive claim for the existence of X (whatever god represents X in his/her opinion)

as such, the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim.  The person evaluating that claim (in this example the atheist) is simply rejecting it because no sufficient evidence was put forward to support the original claim. 

No atheist is going to demonstrate some god anyone made up is not true. It's the story of the teapot flying through space... you can't demonstrate there isn't one. But you're not justified in believing there is one either.



WolfpackN64 on 23 August 2018
setsunatenshi said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Then prepare yourself because I'm a necromancer ;)

1)Whatever exists has a cause is very much true. Everything is at least tracable back to the ultimate contingent event that is the big bang.

2)Secondly, virtual particles are fluctuations of particles. They suddenly and temporarily adopt properties they shouldn't really have, but they do not "pop into existence from nothingness" 3)That would contradict the principle of the conservation of mass.

4)One of my earlier points exactly. If there was not time before the universe, then our "0 hour" of time is our point of existance in the universe. It's a natural numbers row which has a ver nice, clear and defined beginning.

1) citation needed, just because everything you can see with your eyes has a "cause" doesn't mean everything has a cause.

2) We don't really know what they are, we do know they interfere with other particles (therefore they exist) and yet have no cause we can ascertain. So in that sense, yes, they do"pop into existence from nothingness"

3) yes it does, which is why these particles disappear into the nothingness (unstable and their existence is not sustained in the universe). Therefore the conservation of energy/mass is maintained

4) there is no cause if there is no time. a cause requires time to be existent. If the existence of the universe and time are interlinked, then by necessity, the universe has had no cause. This falsifies the final premise in that argument.

 

Cheque

 

and mate :)

1. You mean you don't know

2&3. You mean we're unsure what and why they are

4. If they're interlinked, it means both the universe and time had the same cause.

Not sooooo easy right :)



setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

1) citation needed, just because everything you can see with your eyes has a "cause" doesn't mean everything has a cause.

2) We don't really know what they are, we do know they interfere with other particles (therefore they exist) and yet have no cause we can ascertain. So in that sense, yes, they do"pop into existence from nothingness"

3) yes it does, which is why these particles disappear into the nothingness (unstable and their existence is not sustained in the universe). Therefore the conservation of energy/mass is maintained

4) there is no cause if there is no time. a cause requires time to be existent. If the existence of the universe and time are interlinked, then by necessity, the universe has had no cause. This falsifies the final premise in that argument.

 

Cheque

 

and mate :)

1. You mean you don't know

2&3. You mean we're unsure what and why they are

4. If they're interlinked, it means both the universe and time had the same cause.

Not sooooo easy right :)

Not so easy if you ignore the meaning of the words we are using.

 

If there is no time before the universe, there is no cause to the universe. A cause necessitates a unit of time "before" the event you're trying to justify.

This might be the reason why you're convinced this argument holds any weight. And to be fair the concept of time not existing is something very hard for the common person to imagine, which is why, no matter how many times it's debunked, it keeps being brought forward time and time again. It's a limit on the person evaluating the argument, not on the refutation