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
WolfpackN64 on 01 September 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I'll give you that my deductive and inductive reasons became scrambled, just a slip of the mind.

And my point remains. You asked why this necessary being was God and I provided a secondary argument, which you saw as mixed up into the first? I think we took a wrong turn somewhere in our discussion.

The problem is that the conclusion of your argument is that the necessary being is god.  If we agree that the argument is a deductive argument (which I think you just did but I'm not entirely sure), then the conclusion has to be proven by the premises.  At this point, there should be no need for a secondary argument.  If you reach the conclusion of your syllogism and you still need a secondary argument, then the argument is not valid.


Again to give an example of what I mean, I'll go to William Lane Craig, who is probably the foremost proponent of the cosmological argument.  

His version of the argument goes like this.

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
  2. The universe began to exist;Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause.
I realize this is different than the argument based on necessary being, but the idea is similar (which is why they're both cosmological arguments).  At any rate, his argument is valid.  If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true without a doubt.  For argument's sake, we'll say that the premises are true.

After he establishes the conclusion, he then makes a separate inductive argument that the cause he has proved is god.  For example "if the cause created time it has to be timeless.  If it chose to create the universe it has to be intelligent".  And that sort of thing.  

Craig, as pretty much every modern theologian, has realized that you can't reach god through the cosmological argument alone.  Because the cosmological argument is indeed deductive.  So, they establish a cause or necessary being through the cosmological argument, and then create a separate inductive argument.
 
That's what I mean when I say you're mixing up the argument.  Instead of doing what Craig does and establishing a necessary being (which is a word I'd object to but w/e) through a deductive argument, and then making a separate inductive argument that being is god, you are just kind of shoehorning god in at the the end of your deductive argument.  And this makes the argument invalid and thus debunked in the form you're presenting it.  If you wanted the argument to be valid you'd have to stop at "there is a necessary being".  Then you can argue for why that necessary being is god, but that has to be a completely separate argument. 

Of course I realize that the cosmological argument only shows a necessary being. Sorry if I wasn't clear and I skipped over my second argument, making it seem I mashed the two.

I did a paper on St. Thomas Aquinas who presented the argument and made the jump towards God in one go, having laid out the second argument beforehand.

In any case, it seems as if we kind of agree on what the argument presents.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 01 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

The problem is that the conclusion of your argument is that the necessary being is god.  If we agree that the argument is a deductive argument (which I think you just did but I'm not entirely sure), then the conclusion has to be proven by the premises.  At this point, there should be no need for a secondary argument.  If you reach the conclusion of your syllogism and you still need a secondary argument, then the argument is not valid.


Again to give an example of what I mean, I'll go to William Lane Craig, who is probably the foremost proponent of the cosmological argument.  

His version of the argument goes like this.

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
  2. The universe began to exist;Therefore:
  3. The universe has a cause.
I realize this is different than the argument based on necessary being, but the idea is similar (which is why they're both cosmological arguments).  At any rate, his argument is valid.  If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true without a doubt.  For argument's sake, we'll say that the premises are true.

After he establishes the conclusion, he then makes a separate inductive argument that the cause he has proved is god.  For example "if the cause created time it has to be timeless.  If it chose to create the universe it has to be intelligent".  And that sort of thing.  

Craig, as pretty much every modern theologian, has realized that you can't reach god through the cosmological argument alone.  Because the cosmological argument is indeed deductive.  So, they establish a cause or necessary being through the cosmological argument, and then create a separate inductive argument.
 
That's what I mean when I say you're mixing up the argument.  Instead of doing what Craig does and establishing a necessary being (which is a word I'd object to but w/e) through a deductive argument, and then making a separate inductive argument that being is god, you are just kind of shoehorning god in at the the end of your deductive argument.  And this makes the argument invalid and thus debunked in the form you're presenting it.  If you wanted the argument to be valid you'd have to stop at "there is a necessary being".  Then you can argue for why that necessary being is god, but that has to be a completely separate argument. 

Of course I realize that the cosmological argument only shows a necessary being. Sorry if I wasn't clear and I skipped over my second argument, making it seem I mashed the two.

I did a paper on St. Thomas Aquinas who presented the argument and made the jump towards God in one go, having laid out the second argument beforehand.

In any case, it seems as if we kind of agree on what the argument presents.

Well, the conclusion of the argument definitely says the being is god.  So, it's definitely not valid as you presented it.  If we agree on that then ok.

Taking god out of the equation and ending at necessary being, the argument would be valid, but I don't think it's demonstrated to be sound.  It's based on the assumption that we can apply what is the case in our experience of the universe (cause and effect)and apply it to a novel situation (the universe prior to the big bang).  I would say at best the argument can lead to "something other than contingent things exist".  I don't think you can really get any further than that through deduction, and even that is somewhat shaky.  

And, of course, I would reject revelation as a meaningful argument out of hand, because using revelation to prove god would be begging the question, assuming your definition of revelation is the Bible. 

So when combining all of those factors, I don't think the cosmological argument (even if you combine the deductive and inductive parts) really offers a very compelling argument for the existence of god. 



HollyGamer on 02 September 2018
LuccaCardoso1 said:

I myself don't believe in any god, despite being raised in a spiritist home. That's due mostly to me also being taught to seek answers in science and have scientific thinking since I was a child (I'm also very skeptical because of that). Since there's no scientific evidence for any god, I consider myself an atheist.

I didn't believe with God, until i stumbled on a question "  how the naturals laws and physical law works in this universe ,  or who created theses laws ???  "  because there is no coincidence,  probability which 100% accuracy  in every major and small event in this live.  



JWeinCom on 02 September 2018
HollyGamer said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

I myself don't believe in any god, despite being raised in a spiritist home. That's due mostly to me also being taught to seek answers in science and have scientific thinking since I was a child (I'm also very skeptical because of that). Since there's no scientific evidence for any god, I consider myself an atheist.

I didn't believe with God, until i stumbled on a question "  how the naturals laws and physical law works in this universe ,  or who created theses laws ???  "  because there is no coincidence,  probability which 100% accuracy  in every major and small event in this live.  

The laws of physics are not created.  There are descriptive laws and prescriptive laws.  A prescriptive law is something like the speed limit that tells somewhat what you have to do.  Then there are descriptive laws like the laws of physics.  They're not laws that have to be enforced or obeyed.  They're just our observations about how things act in the universe.

There's no one like creating those kinds of laws or enforcing them.  Unless you think god is up there saying "hey you photon! You better not go more than 299,792 km per hour or your ass is spending the night in the slammer!"



fatslob-:O on 02 September 2018

The short conclusion is that there is absolutely no way of yet proving or disproving it's existence but I choose to live life in absence for belief of it's existence ...

Also, I find it extremely annoying and hypocritical of some scientists (particularly popular scientists) attempting to outright deny the possibility and practice absolutism against evangelists when the action is diametrically antithetical to their occupation ...

Arguing or even convincing a hardcore evangelists is not in the slightest bit productive but scientists trying to deliver social justice as a political message is cringe worthy at the least and it becomes totally shameful on their part in the face of conflict against valid data. The only thing that should even be ethical about science is collecting good data, no more or less but failing to do that would undermine the information delivered by the platform ... (crap such as human rights, promoting minority demographic representation or anything else is counterproductive)



Around the Network
Pemalite on 02 September 2018

There is zero empirical evidence to justify the assertion that any kind of God actually exists.
After thousands of years, no religion has been able to meet the burden of proof of their religious claims. None at all.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

WolfpackN64 on 02 September 2018
Pemalite said:
There is zero empirical evidence to justify the assertion that any kind of God actually exists.
After thousands of years, no religion has been able to meet the burden of proof of their religious claims. None at all.

Yeah, but unless you're a sceptic, no one expects religion to provide empirical prove of a being, whose very essence would make it hard to empirically prove. The burden of proof is, considering the epistemological state of both sides of the argument, on both sides of the argument.



WolfpackN64 on 02 September 2018
JWeinCom said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Of course I realize that the cosmological argument only shows a necessary being. Sorry if I wasn't clear and I skipped over my second argument, making it seem I mashed the two.

I did a paper on St. Thomas Aquinas who presented the argument and made the jump towards God in one go, having laid out the second argument beforehand.

In any case, it seems as if we kind of agree on what the argument presents.

Well, the conclusion of the argument definitely says the being is god.  So, it's definitely not valid as you presented it.  If we agree on that then ok.

Taking god out of the equation and ending at necessary being, the argument would be valid, but I don't think it's demonstrated to be sound.  It's based on the assumption that we can apply what is the case in our experience of the universe (cause and effect)and apply it to a novel situation (the universe prior to the big bang).  I would say at best the argument can lead to "something other than contingent things exist".  I don't think you can really get any further than that through deduction, and even that is somewhat shaky.  

And, of course, I would reject revelation as a meaningful argument out of hand, because using revelation to prove god would be begging the question, assuming your definition of revelation is the Bible. 

So when combining all of those factors, I don't think the cosmological argument (even if you combine the deductive and inductive parts) really offers a very compelling argument for the existence of god. 

Well, the probability of a necessary being or event goes a long way of course. As for revelation, I meant that both in the biblical sense as in the historical sense (the various events where people experienced revelation). Revelation in the personal sense would be a form of abduction, since you take God as an inference to the best explanation for an experience.



Pemalite on 02 September 2018
WolfpackN64 said:

The burden of proof is, considering the epistemological state of both sides of the argument, on both sides of the argument.

No it's not.
The burden of proof entails that ANYONE who makes a claim needs to actually provide evidence, that is all there is to it.

Atheists asking Theists evidence for their claims or heavily scrutinizing said Theistic claims do not need to meet any kind of burden of proof. - Atheists aren't claiming that something else actually exists in it's place. (And most Atheists believe in what Science has provided anyway.)

Atheists are also free to discard any Theistic claim that doesn't meet said burden of proof. I.E. God.

The only real Truth is what we have discovered via the scientific method and not what the Bible, Torah or Quran or other Religious texts says, that's really what it comes down to.

Fact of the matter is... These Middle Eastern, Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) have been around for thousands of years, they have had thousands of years to gather appropriate empirical evidence to justify their various religious assertions... And have blatantly failed on all fronts... And honestly I believe they should be ridiculed for that. Heavily.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

WolfpackN64 on 02 September 2018
Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:

The burden of proof is, considering the epistemological state of both sides of the argument, on both sides of the argument.

No it's not.
The burden of proof entails that ANYONE who makes a claim needs to actually provide evidence, that is all there is to it.

Atheists asking Theists evidence for their claims or heavily scrutinizing said Theistic claims do not need to meet any kind of burden of proof. - Atheists aren't claiming that something else actually exists in it's place. (And most Atheists believe in what Science has provided anyway.)

Atheists are also free to discard any Theistic claim that doesn't meet said burden of proof. I.E. God.

The only real Truth is what we have discovered via the scientific method and not what the Bible, Torah or Quran or other Religious texts says, that's really what it comes down to.

Fact of the matter is... These Middle Eastern, Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) have been around for thousands of years, they have had thousands of years to gather appropriate empirical evidence to justify their various religious assertions... And have blatantly failed on all fronts... And honestly I believe they should be ridiculed for that. Heavily.

Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right. on the contrary. If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us, as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove  anything.