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

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

 

Do you believe in any god?

Yes 63 36.21%
 
No 111 63.79%
 
Total:174
vivster on 30 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:

If god is the logical conclusion from an argument, what are the arguments against a being that would not be considered a theistic god?

Good question. As for the cosmological argument, it only builds up to God, not against anything else that could be considered a necessary being or event. Problem is most discussion is done back and forth on the same arguments, but eventually someone will circumvent the discussion and look at other possabilities. Sorry if this awnser is somewhat dissapointing.

Don't worry, most of your answers in this thread were. We're used to it by now.

In the end what most people are arguing against is not necessarily the existence of a being that set the universe in motion but rather the portrayal of that being by major religions and the resulting massive social implications that plague us to this day.

I am a man of science and I will not blindly believe in a God that has no proof whatsoever. But I will never deny the possibility that some kind of being jump started the existence of the universe. Mostly because even if such a being exists that it has absolutely no meaning for human life on earth.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
JWeinCom on 30 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

How did you establish the uncaused thing is a "being".  As opposed to say quantum particles which do arise with seemingly no cause.  

How did you rule out the possibility of multiple uncaused things?  Granted you only need one to start off a chain, but if one could exist, it stands to reason that more than one can exist.  Things are either possible or impossible.  Not possible but just once.  

How did you come to the conclusion that this necessary being is God?  You used a capital G so I'm assuming you mean Yahweh Jehovah or whatever you call the Judeo-Christian god.  And this god has tons of characteristics that are entirely unnecessary, and perhaps unlikely, for a first cause.  So how did you get there?

How does a being exist without being caused?  Saying it's necessary doesn't solve this problem.  There has to be some kind of explanation for its existence for it to be justified.  If you are saying its possible, then you have to establish some kind of mechanism or process, and why it could only apply to one thing at one time?

So, yeah.  The argument is completely flawed head to toe.

For one, Quantum particles or virtual particles do not "appear" out of nowhere. They're temporary states.

The assumption that this being is God is jist that, a reasoned assumption. No other necessary being really fits the bill so jumping inductively to this being God is a jump we logically can make.

The explanation for this being being uncaused is that it is a necessary being. The mechanism of which is that due to it's very nature, God would be uncaused.

And lastly, it's only flawed in the sense that you bring non-metaphysical arguments in a metaphysical argument to show how unlikely it would be. That doesn't really work either. Even then, the argument isn't fatally flawed.

Seems to me your argument is basically "I defined God as necessary so he must exist".  It's pretty devoid of any actual content.

If you're proposing a god that interacts with this world, then at some point reality enters the picture.  Unless you're arguing for a purely metaphysical god, you can't discount non-metaphysical arguments.

Eagle367 said:
JWeinCom said:

If there is a god who interacts with the universe, but does so in a way specifically designed to avoid detection... Then I guess I couldn't detect it.

But, what reason could I possibly have to believe this god exists?  How could you tell the difference between an undetectable god, and a non-existent god?  

I also don't believe in an nth dimension or another universe, for largely the same reasons.  Why and how would/could I believe in something that cannot be detected?

Neutrinos couldn't be detected for a long while. Same with electrons and protons and atoms themselves. The point being we are primitive in many ways still and have a long ways to go to discover all that is within our grasp let alone every mystery there is in the universe and you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want but we both won't know until we die or won't ever know since death will be the end if you're right. In my belief this life is a test of faith .Wouldn't be much of a test if we could find evidence of God so easily when we can't even find everything in our oceans in our little world. I am strong in my belief but I'm not arrogant in it. That's the one thing I avoid. I use my little brain to make deductions and judgements as to how everything should be, hoping I am right. A Godless existence doesn't make any sense to me

So... we may find evidence of god's existence in the future?  Cool.  When that happens, let me know and then I'll believe in god.  Until that actually happens, belief is not justified.

If it's a test of faith... why?  What positive trait is it testing for?  To see who believes without evidence?  Why is that a good thing?            

SuperRetroTurbo said:
JWeinCom said:

 

I didn't assume it was a coincidence, I said this is what I see as the most likely explanation.  Slight but important distinction.  

How did you determine that it was not a coincidence?  And even if you don't believe it was a coincidence, how did you get to god or a soul being involved in this?

I didnt determine it was not coincidence.

 

I implied that I could not accept what I interpreted as your suggestion to be true. Slight but important distinction.

 

It may have been a coincidence but because of the surrounding circumstance I simply choose to believe in something more profound.

 

I have also had a number of unexplainable experiences that lead me to believe in the supernatural.

You want to believe it's profound so you do?  Ok then.  That's your option.  I don't find it very convincing, and I'm not sure why you asked for honest opinions if your mind is made up.



dark_gh0st_b0y on 30 August 2018
Immersiveunreality said:
dark_gh0st_b0y said:

I do believe in god, Christianity specifically because it is the most efficient cure of the spirit, for those who understand it

and since mental health is the most important thing in my opinion, it really leads to a better life

I am a science freak at the same time, and I find it pointless to mix the two, religion's purpose is not to fill science gaps, it is the mental cure that leads to a better life, making Christianity self-evident in its biggest part

and in my opinion, psychologists  are the kind of new ''religion'', telling you what to think and how to live and how to act, all that while making it look 'advisory' and asking for money... an extremely short-term relief rather than a cure

psychology is science, science may heal the body but will never heal the spirit

welcome to the ex-religion age, the age of personal psychologists

And don't forget about the social media religion that makes people have an addicted fake feeling of belonging online while at the same time becoming antisocial in the real world.

so true! it is also supported by science that getting digital likes (approval - positive comments in real life) emits a substance to the brain that brings very, very temporal euphoria, and since through the social media people have very easy, immediate-fast access to ''approval'' by other, people get addicted to this



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

dark_gh0st_b0y on 30 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
Immersiveunreality said:

And don't forget about the social media religion that makes people have an addicted fake feeling of belonging online while at the same time becoming antisocial in the real world.

Can you define what you mean by religion?  Cause that doesn't sound like one to me.

people largely misunderstand the purpose and meaning of religion these days

the point is not making you ''fear'' the judgement of an upper being, religion is a guide, it exists for the people, not for god

it is about suggesting a way of life designed to bring permanent euphoria to those who understand it, that's why Jesus is considered as the 'lord and savior' of the Christians in the first place, resurrection of the soul



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

WolfpackN64 on 30 August 2018
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Good question. As for the cosmological argument, it only builds up to God, not against anything else that could be considered a necessary being or event. Problem is most discussion is done back and forth on the same arguments, but eventually someone will circumvent the discussion and look at other possabilities. Sorry if this awnser is somewhat dissapointing.

Don't worry, most of your answers in this thread were. We're used to it by now.

In the end what most people are arguing against is not necessarily the existence of a being that set the universe in motion but rather the portrayal of that being by major religions and the resulting massive social implications that plague us to this day.

I am a man of science and I will not blindly believe in a God that has no proof whatsoever. But I will never deny the possibility that some kind of being jump started the existence of the universe. Mostly because even if such a being exists that it has absolutely no meaning for human life on earth.
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

For one, Quantum particles or virtual particles do not "appear" out of nowhere. They're temporary states.

The assumption that this being is God is jist that, a reasoned assumption. No other necessary being really fits the bill so jumping inductively to this being God is a jump we logically can make.

The explanation for this being being uncaused is that it is a necessary being. The mechanism of which is that due to it's very nature, God would be uncaused.

And lastly, it's only flawed in the sense that you bring non-metaphysical arguments in a metaphysical argument to show how unlikely it would be. That doesn't really work either. Even then, the argument isn't fatally flawed.

Seems to me your argument is basically "I defined God as necessary so he must exist".  It's pretty devoid of any actual content.

If you're proposing a god that interacts with this world, then at some point reality enters the picture.  Unless you're arguing for a purely metaphysical god, you can't discount non-metaphysical arguments.

Going to respond to two at once since I finally feel like I'm reaching the end of my point in the entire thread here.

At first, the "proof" I put forward of God's existance is revelation (can be anything from ancient to modern day revelation), even thrown in a mention of personal experiance. Since that does not suffice for most people (and I understand that) and they want arguments to justify the believe in our portrayel of God, the most paramount question is whether such a being even exists at all. Hence my repeated defense of the cosmological argument.

Having reached the point where the cosmological argument is doubted, but still stands, we have now come full circle to the question: "But why is this necessary being God?". The awnser is, given the argument, we know it must be God through... revelation.

And here we have the crux of the real Christian argument. Tradition founds itself on Rational Theology, which explains that what it has learned is God through... Tradition. Just as the Atheïst critique is Empirical towards tradition, it must lean on Skepticism against Rational Theology, and eventually ends up back at Empiricism asking for proof.

We are seemingly both stuck with circular reasoning. However, the astute philosopher will see we're both arguing on Coherentist lines (in which beliefs can support each other and end up circular, but this does not have to be the case) and neither has build up any conclusive arguments to knock the other off of his foundations.

So we are both stuck without proof, our "truth" in our definition of knowledge, but we can both have justified beliefs in our arguments, which I certainly have as I have put them forward here.

At this point we can recognize the matter of God's existence is a great deal more complicated then many people brashly claim or we can dig ourselves in again and return to our trench warfare.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 30 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:

Don't worry, most of your answers in this thread were. We're used to it by now.

In the end what most people are arguing against is not necessarily the existence of a being that set the universe in motion but rather the portrayal of that being by major religions and the resulting massive social implications that plague us to this day.

I am a man of science and I will not blindly believe in a God that has no proof whatsoever. But I will never deny the possibility that some kind of being jump started the existence of the universe. Mostly because even if such a being exists that it has absolutely no meaning for human life on earth.
JWeinCom said:

Seems to me your argument is basically "I defined God as necessary so he must exist".  It's pretty devoid of any actual content.

If you're proposing a god that interacts with this world, then at some point reality enters the picture.  Unless you're arguing for a purely metaphysical god, you can't discount non-metaphysical arguments.

Going to respond to two at once since I finally feel like I'm reaching the end of my point in the entire thread here.

At first, the "proof" I put forward of God's existance is revelation (can be anything from ancient to modern day revelation), even thrown in a mention of personal experiance. Since that does not suffice for most people (and I understand that) and they want arguments to justify the believe in our portrayel of God, the most paramount question is whether such a being even exists at all. Hence my repeated defense of the cosmological argument.

Having reached the point where the cosmological argument is doubted, but still stands, we have now come full circle to the question: "But why is this necessary being God?". The awnser is, given the argument, we know it must be God through... revelation.

And here we have the crux of the real Christian argument. Tradition founds itself on Rational Theology, which explains that what it has learned is God through... Tradition. Just as the Atheïst critique is Empirical towards tradition, it must lean on Skepticism against Rational Theology, and eventually ends up back at Empiricism asking for proof.

We are seemingly both stuck with circular reasoning. However, the astute philosopher will see we're both arguing on Coherentist lines (in which beliefs can support each other and end up circular, but this does not have to be the case) and neither has build up any conclusive arguments to knock the other off of his foundations.

So we are both stuck without proof, our "truth" in our definition of knowledge, but we can both have justified beliefs in our arguments, which I certainly have as I have put them forward here.

At this point we can recognize the matter of God's existence is a great deal more complicated then many people brashly claim or we can dig ourselves in again and return to our trench warfare.

Uhhhhhhh... no...

That's just not how it works.  

An argument does not simply stand because it has not been disproved.  I can create literally thousands of arguments that are unfalsifiable.  That doesn't mean they're true.

You have to demonstrate the premises of your arguments.  And when you're asked to demonstrate them, you just kind of repeat them.   

The only premise you've even attempted to justify is the last one... and you did so with... revelation?  In that case why even waste time with the cosmological argument?  If you believe in revelation (which is not justified), then you believe in god.  If you don't believe in revelation, then the cosmological argument (in the form you presented)  is invalid.

Your argument isn't just circular, it's utterly useless.  It can literally only prove your god to people who already believe in your god.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 30 August 2018

WolfpackN64 on 30 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Going to respond to two at once since I finally feel like I'm reaching the end of my point in the entire thread here.

At first, the "proof" I put forward of God's existance is revelation (can be anything from ancient to modern day revelation), even thrown in a mention of personal experiance. Since that does not suffice for most people (and I understand that) and they want arguments to justify the believe in our portrayel of God, the most paramount question is whether such a being even exists at all. Hence my repeated defense of the cosmological argument.

Having reached the point where the cosmological argument is doubted, but still stands, we have now come full circle to the question: "But why is this necessary being God?". The awnser is, given the argument, we know it must be God through... revelation.

And here we have the crux of the real Christian argument. Tradition founds itself on Rational Theology, which explains that what it has learned is God through... Tradition. Just as the Atheïst critique is Empirical towards tradition, it must lean on Skepticism against Rational Theology, and eventually ends up back at Empiricism asking for proof.

We are seemingly both stuck with circular reasoning. However, the astute philosopher will see we're both arguing on Coherentist lines (in which beliefs can support each other and end up circular, but this does not have to be the case) and neither has build up any conclusive arguments to knock the other off of his foundations.

So we are both stuck without proof, our "truth" in our definition of knowledge, but we can both have justified beliefs in our arguments, which I certainly have as I have put them forward here.

At this point we can recognize the matter of God's existence is a great deal more complicated then many people brashly claim or we can dig ourselves in again and return to our trench warfare.

Uhhhhhhh... no...

That's just not how it works.  

An argument does not simply stand because it has not been disproved.  I can create literally thousands of arguments that are unfalsifiable.  That doesn't mean they're true.

You have to demonstrate the premises of your arguments.  And when you're asked to demonstrate them, you just kind of repeat them.   

The only premise you've even attempted to justify is the last one... and you did so with... revelation?  In that case why even waste time with the cosmological argument?  If you believe in revelation (which is not justified), then you believe in god.  If you don't believe in revelation, then the cosmological argument (in the form you presented)  is invalid.

Your argument isn't just circular, it's utterly useless.  It can literally only prove your god to people who already believe in your god.

I did demonstrate them. People asked to elaborate them and I explained further. I see no problem here.

People asked me to show them why a Christian God would follow from the argument, which is outside the scope of the cosmological argument, so I bring them back to revelation (every case of which can be justified or not, usually determined by external authority).

And of course everyone who actually uses the cosmological argument and rational theology believes in revelation. The argument is often used because people ask further justification for the existance of God.

I could go even deeper into the cosmological argument to show why it would end in monotheism, but a singular argument for the existance of a Christian God doesn't exist. That would require a whole coherentist build up of arguments leading into an entire worldview, at which point I'd be writing a book, not posting in a thread on a video game forum.



JWeinCom on 30 August 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

Uhhhhhhh... no...

That's just not how it works.  

An argument does not simply stand because it has not been disproved.  I can create literally thousands of arguments that are unfalsifiable.  That doesn't mean they're true.

You have to demonstrate the premises of your arguments.  And when you're asked to demonstrate them, you just kind of repeat them.   

The only premise you've even attempted to justify is the last one... and you did so with... revelation?  In that case why even waste time with the cosmological argument?  If you believe in revelation (which is not justified), then you believe in god.  If you don't believe in revelation, then the cosmological argument (in the form you presented)  is invalid.

Your argument isn't just circular, it's utterly useless.  It can literally only prove your god to people who already believe in your god.

I did demonstrate them. People asked to elaborate them and I explained further. I see no problem here.

People asked me to show them why a Christian God would follow from the argument, which is outside the scope of the cosmological argument, so I bring them back to revelation (every case of which can be justified or not, usually determined by external authority).

And of course everyone who actually uses the cosmological argument and rational theology believes in revelation. The argument is often used because people ask further justification for the existance of God.

I could go even deeper into the cosmological argument to show why it would end in monotheism, but a singular argument for the existance of a Christian God doesn't exist. That would require a whole coherentist build up of arguments leading into an entire worldview, at which point I'd be writing a book, not posting in a thread on a video game forum.


You cannot say your argument has true premises, and is still in doubt.  If you have premises that you've demonstrated, and the structure of the argument is valid, then the argument is true.  If you acknowledge that there are still doubts about your argument, then either one or more premise is not supported, or the structure is invalid.  Unless you're claiming the argument is actually proven though, one of those problems has to exist.  I'd personally say it's the premises, because your "justification" of the premises has been to repeat some variety of "god is necessary" which is the conclusion of your argument.  Using the conclusion to support your premises is question begging.  

As for the Christian god being outside the scope of the argument... no.  You made that the conclusion of your argument.  How can you say the conclusion of your argument is outside the scope of the argument?  That's nonsensical.  Which is why most proponents of the cosmological argument are wise enough to end it at first cause.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 30 August 2018

WolfpackN64 on 30 August 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I did demonstrate them. People asked to elaborate them and I explained further. I see no problem here.

People asked me to show them why a Christian God would follow from the argument, which is outside the scope of the cosmological argument, so I bring them back to revelation (every case of which can be justified or not, usually determined by external authority).

And of course everyone who actually uses the cosmological argument and rational theology believes in revelation. The argument is often used because people ask further justification for the existance of God.

I could go even deeper into the cosmological argument to show why it would end in monotheism, but a singular argument for the existance of a Christian God doesn't exist. That would require a whole coherentist build up of arguments leading into an entire worldview, at which point I'd be writing a book, not posting in a thread on a video game forum.

You didn't elaborate further.  When someone asked you to demonstrate a premise, you basically just replied with some form of "god is necessary" which is the conclusion of your argument.  When asked to justify why God should be invoked in your argument you point to revelation... to believe in which requires you to believe in god. 

So basically, if you believe in god, god exists... which is a meaningless argument.  

People asked me the same question five times over. I elaborated as much as I could but I can't help it if people simply fail to understand the argument and reply with counterarguments that miss the point I was trying to make in the first place.

And no, You saw me write down this argument over and over so refrain from making simplistic statements because I'm kind of losing my patience here.



JWeinCom on 30 August 2018

 

WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

You didn't elaborate further.  When someone asked you to demonstrate a premise, you basically just replied with some form of "god is necessary" which is the conclusion of your argument.  When asked to justify why God should be invoked in your argument you point to revelation... to believe in which requires you to believe in god. 

So basically, if you believe in god, god exists... which is a meaningless argument.  

People asked me the same question five times over. I elaborated as much as I could but I can't help it if people simply fail to understand the argument and reply with counterarguments that miss the point I was trying to make in the first place.

And no, You saw me write down this argument over and over so refrain from making simplistic statements because I'm kind of losing my patience here.

I edited my last post to better illustrate my point, but I may as well put it here since it works as a response to this anyway. Just a couple of points first.

1.  Maybe if people keep asking you, your answer doesn't actually answer the question?  Either we're all too dumb to understand it or your answer sucks.  Personally, I'm thinking the latter.

2.  I'm not sure what simplistic statement you're referring to...anyway...

You cannot say your argument has true premises, and is still in doubt.  If you have premises that you've demonstrated, and the structure of the argument is valid, then the argument is true.  If you acknowledge that there are still doubts about your argument, then either one or more premise is not supported, or the structure is invalid.  Unless you're claiming the argument is actually proven though, one of those problems has to exist.  I'd personally say it's the premises, because your "justification" of the premises has been to repeat some variety of "god is necessary" which is the conclusion of your argument.  Using the conclusion to support your premises is question begging.  

As for the Christian god being outside the scope of the argument... no.  You made that the conclusion of your argument.  How can you say the conclusion of your argument is outside the scope of the argument?  That's nonsensical.  Which is why most proponents of the cosmological argument are wise enough to end it at first cause.  

I'm sorry if you're losing your patience, but logic has rules.  If you want to present a logical argument, expect people to hold you to them.

Edit:

I'm going to give a more detailed description because I'm trying to distract myself from something.  But maybe people will learn more about logic.

If you're presenting a formal logic argument, then it has to be proven or not proven.  Its closer to math than philosophy in that regard.  There's no real middle ground to be had.

For an argument to be true or to "stand" it needs to be valid and sound.

Valid means that the conclusion will follow the premises, assuming the premises are true. 

For example...

P1: All Sony first party games suck.

P2: Uncharted is a first party game.

C:  Uncharted sucks.

This is a valid argument.  If the premises are both true, the conclusion would have to be true.  Of course, someone will likely point out the flaw that P1 can not really be demonstrated. But, whether or not the premises are actually true has nothing to do with validity.   The truth of the premises is all about soundness.

Sound means that an argument is valid + the premises are all true.  So, this argument would not be sound because I could not realistically justify P1.  

An example of a sound argument would be. 

P1:  The 3DS game plays all DS games.

P2:  Nintendogs is a DS game.

C:  The 3DS can play Nintendogs.

That argument is both valid and sound. All of the premises could be demonstrated (unless there are some DS games I'm unaware of that won't play on a 3DS... but for the sake of convenience lets pretend Guitar hero DS doesn't exist), and the conclusion follows from the two premises.  

So, is your argument valid? Nope.

Your conclusion is "6) This necessary being is God."

 For your argument to be true, this conclusion has to be demonstrated by the premises and the premises alone.  You can use outside information to demonstrate the premises, but you can't use any outside information to prove the conclusion.  Because the whole point of the argument is that the premises prove the conclusion.  So when you say,    

"But why is this necessary being God?". The awnser is, given the argument, we know it must be God through... revelation.

You have just invalidated your own argument.  Your conclusion IS that the necessary being is god.  If that's your conclusion than it HAS to be true based on the premises.  If you need to invoke revelation to support that, then that defeats the whole purpose of the argument.   You claim that your argument demonstrates "this necessary being is god" then later you're asking "why is this necessary being god".  If you still have to ask, then you obviously did not prove it. If your premises do not lead to your conclusion, then your argument is not valid.
Is your argument sound?
Again, I'd say no.  I think I could object to all of the premises (except maybe 2) but if I can invalidate one then the argument is debunked.  Let's focus on 3 and 4.
"3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity."
This is simply malformed.  It is wrong on two grounds.  First off, just because something goes on for eternity does not necessarily mean it is past finite.  Secondly, I don't know if the chain of cause and effect goes on forever.  I believe most physicists believe the universe will have some kind of ending.  Third, I don't see how one 
follows the other.  If we find the future ends at some point, we'd still be able to follow the chain backwards, right?  So... I don't really get the purpose of this premise, and it seems like it needs to go back to the workshop.  So the argument in this form is debunked.  You may be able to change the wording and rebunk it, but it is not sound as it stands. 
4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.
This one is waaaaaaay more problematic.  To start the chain their must be a CAUSE.  That's something we can maybe accept.  But you didn't say cause, you said BEING.  A being refers to something that is alive, or at least has life-like qualities, and typically implies intelligence.  And I'm sorry, you simply haven't demonstrated that.  Like, at all.  There's no reason, according to your premises, that the cause can't be a non-being.  A particle, an energy surge, a quantum fluctuation, etc.  If you want to say it is a being, then you need to somehow prove that, and I don't think you can.  This is similar to the problem in your conclusion.  
When you say things like 
Having reached the point where the cosmological argument is doubted, but still stands,
you are showing a complete misunderstanding of formal logic and syllogisms.  If your argument is valid and sound, there can be NO room for doubt.  The only way someone could doubt a true argument (syllogism) is if they themselves are irrational.  
Otherwise, if there is doubt, then the syllogism is not proven.  It could be either not valid (the conclusion doesn't follow the premises) or not sound (the premises are not demonstrated).  In your case it is both.  
Consider it debunked.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 31 August 2018