Is God real?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
@J-Machine My arguments weren’t hyperbole (there literally isn’t any evidence that a god exists), and I’m not trying to “shove atheism down people’s throats.” A person’s beliefs are their prerogative. It sounds like I’m not the one being hyperbolic. I completely agree with you that faith is belief without evidence, but a person who cares whether their beliefs are true cannot hold a belief on the basis of faith, since faith is not an avenue to truth. If a person cares if their beliefs are true, then yes, faith is detrimental.

@MichelRT24 You’re right that scientists haven’t answers all of the questions about the universe. We don’t know, for example, what came before the Big Bang (pretending there was anything before the Big Bang, since it might be nonsensical for there to be something before time). However, it’s a logical fallacy called “God of the Gaps” to say that an absence of an explanation is any reason to think a god exists. “I don’t know” only means “I don’t know.” It doesn’t demonstrate anything else, and it’s not a reason to believe an unsubstantiated claim. We know now that evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, but if we weren’t aware of evolution, that wouldn’t be evidence that a god exists. In reality, it would just be that we hadn’t figured out evolution yet.

@tabzer When I’m talking about caring if a belief is “true,” I’m talking about caring if a belief comports with reality. I’m not talking about the sincerity of a belief. That’s a different topic.

I agree with you that people hold onto beliefs for a variety of reasons. My point is that a lot of those reasons are irrational and aren’t demonstrative of the claim being true. Nothing I’ve said is a “word salad,” and I haven’t said anything that’s contradictory. If you re going to claim that there’s something I said that was contradictory, I’d like you to be specific please. Thank you.

Irrationality objectively exists. By definition, it’s when something or someone is without reason or rationale. It’s not a controversial statement to say irrationality exists. You can disagree with my claim that the god belief is irrational, but in order to argue against that claim, you would have to provide evidence that a god exists. Without evidence of a god’s existence, the belief is irrational by definition.

When I’ve “ascribed god with traits and character,” like when I’ve addressed the Biblical God, I’m only addressing a specific god claim. I never claimed that all god claims are the same when I’ve talked about the morality of the Biblical God, for example. I’m also not the one who came up with those traits and characters for that specific god concept; it’s just the one that a lot of people here believe in. However, I have not heard any god claim that has met its burden of proof. It isn’t “contradictory,” and it isn’t “schizophrenia.” If you think I’m unfairly ascribing traits and character to God, without addressing that it’s a specific god concept, I’d like it if you addressed it specifically. I’m not sure why you’re leaping to talk about some hypothetical “unresolved trauma with a real-life patriarch.” I am not the one who believes in an imaginary daddy in the sky, after all.

With regard to anecdotal evidence, I am not going to accept any kind of evidence that isn’t demonstrative of the claim being made. Why should I?

@The Real Jdbye There is no evidence that we are in fact living in a simulation. It’s an unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim, so there’s also no way to assess the probability that we are living in a simulation.

You identify as an agnostic, which is completely your prerogative, but you should know that agnosticism refers to the topic of knowledge about a god’s existence, not belief. For example, I am an atheist because I do not accept the claim that a god exists (purely because its burden of proof has not been met). However, I am also an agnostic, because I do not know that a god does not exist. What are you? Are you an agnostic atheist, or are you an agnostic theist?

@smileyhead The “God” explanation for why the world exists has not met its burden of proof, so I am unsure as to how you can so “there is no better explanation.” When talking about the Earth, if that’s what you mean when you say “world,” we actually know how that came to be. We know that the Earth formed from the Sun’s accretion disc approximately 4.54 billion years ago.

You said you would rather “spend the final moments of your life thinking there is a Heaven,” which is your prerogative, but I know I would feel better knowing that my beliefs were what were likely true, not what would make me happy. A belief is and should be “acceptance of a claim as true,” not “acceptance of a claim as what I want to be true.” I would also argue that the finite nature of our lives is a significant part of what gives our lives meaning.

@linuxares With regard to what created the universe, we don’t know. It could be that the universe created itself. It could be that some outside naturalistic force created the universe. It could be that the universe has always existed in some form. It could be that the formation of the universe was atemporal (e.g. some event in the future caused the formation of the universe in the past). It might also be nonsensical to talk about what caused the universe, when the universe necessarily includes laws of causality. In other words, asking what caused causality might not make sense.

With regard to your question about what caused God (if God hypothetically existed), that is an excellent question. Historically, people have used God as an answer to difficult questions they didn’t know the answer to, but the God answer usually doesn’t answer anything. “What created the universe? God did it.” When someone inevitably asks “Okay, so what created God,” there is no reason why the answer to that question (God is infinite, God doesn’t need a cause, etc.) couldn’t also just apply to the original question of what created the universe.

I love your question “Why is it important to believe in a God?” A lot of people have been conditioned by religion to think that belief in a god is somehow virtuous and that not believing in a god is somehow evil. That’s one of the ways they rope people in. If you didn’t have that kind of conditioning, there would be a lot more atheists and a lot fewer theists.

With regard to where humans came from without a god, we know that humans are the product of billions of years of evolution by natural selection. Different species evolved different traits that suited their environments. Dolphins are the way they are (without human-level sapience) because their traits are sufficient in allowing them to survive and reproduce. One of the many reasons humans evolved human-level sapience is because of the climate change in Africa that caused the trees our non-human ancestors used to dwell in to die off, so we had to quickly adapt to being on the ground level with predators. Hands and arms that had previously been used for tree-climbing were not free to manipulate the environment and use tools, etc.

@ tabzer If you are arguing that the belief in a god is not irrational, but you are suggesting there is only anecdotal “evidence,” then yes, you are asking people to believe in anecdotal evidence. I agree with you that there might only be anecdotal “evidence” for the existence of God. The problem is anecdotal evidence typically isn’t demonstrative of anything. There’s plenty of anecdotal “evidence” for the existence of ghosts, alien abductions, Big Foot, fairies, unicorns, etc., but these things are still irrational because an anecdote demonstrates nothing more than the anecdote itself. To use an example I used previously, a person who has cancer, prays for it to go away, and then goes into remission is merely an example of someone having cancer, praying for it to go away, and then going into remission. It is not evidence for prayer working, a god causing the cancer to go into remission, etc.

I am curious: What is the one experience that best demonstrates to you that a god exists? What was it about the experience that convinced you that a god exists? How is the experience demonstrative of a god’s existence? Whether or not an experience is actually demonstrative of a god’s existence is not subjective; it’s objective. I agree with you that if an experience is actually demonstrative of a god’s existence, it would probably convince me as it has convinced you. However, I am doubtful that the experience is actually demonstrative of a god’s existence. There is nothing restricting you from articulating what it is you have experienced that demonstrates the existence of a god.

“There is no evidence of X” is not a positive claim. It is an acknowledgement that evidence has not been provided for X, and it does not have a burden of proof. If you disagree with the statement that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then you have two options: concede that we are unaware of any evidence that a god exists, or provide evidence that a god exists. Acknowledging that there is no evidence for something is not an assertion of omniscience. I never claimed that a god absolutely doesn’t exist, and there will never be any evidence provided for a god’s existence. I said no evidence for a god’s existence has been provided in the history of humanity so far as I’m aware, and that’s a fair and accurate statement.

It is completely fair to attribute atrocities, particularly those in the name of a supposed god, to the god they believe in (if the god exists). That god, if it existed, has not stepped in to stop those atrocities.

Those who disbelieve in a god do not have a “fantasy” about what a god is. My disbelief in a particular god claim is in response to someone else’s fantasy. In other words, it is not the fault of the atheist that someone else has an imaginary friend.

Regarding the burden of proof, you are correct that someone saying “God exists” has as much a burden of proof as someone saying “God does not exist.” I did not say “God does not exist.” I said the claim “God exists” has not met its burden of proof, and the default position in that case is to reject the claim. Now, if we were to narrow down the God concept to something specific, such as the God of the Bible, there are arguments to be made (The problem of evil, the argument from divine hiddenness, etc.) that this specific God does not exist, but that’s a separate conversation about very specific god concepts.

@wownmnpare Aliens might exist, but they might not. We know that the diversity of life we see on Earth evolved through naturalistic means, so given the right conditions, it seems more than plausible that something similar could happen on another planet orbiting another star somewhere. Given the vastness of the cosmos (a low estimate is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the observable universe, with 100 billion of those stars residing in our galaxy alone), it seems unlikely we are alone in the universe. The problem is we really don’t know what the probability is of life forming naturally. It could be 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, making us the only planet with life in the observable universe, or it could be 1/1, and life inevitably forms when given the right conditions and time.

It might also be that life is common, but intelligent life is uncommon. It could be intelligent life is common, but they usually cause their own extinctions with nuclear war, etc. We just don’t know.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
@Lacius

" When I’m talking about caring if a belief is “true,” I’m talking about caring if a belief comports with reality. I’m not talking about the sincerity of a belief. That’s a different topic."

If a belief is sincere, it lacks pretense and deceit, so I disagree. Word salad is word salad.

"If you re going to claim that there’s something I said that was contradictory, I’d like you to be specific please."

You said: If you care if your beliefs are true, then you require evidence for those beliefs. If you don’t have evidence for those beliefs, then you cannot hold them.

You have also stated that "there is no evidence". Seeing as "there is no evidence", you are saying that people cannot hold beliefs. Or maybe you are saying that they only cannot if they "care if they are true". Both conclusions of this word salad are falsifiable. This does not "comport with reality".

"Irrationality objectively exists."

Irrationality is just your god of the gaps.

"There is no evidence" is an assertion. It is a negative claim. It has a burden of proof.

"the default position in that case is to reject the claim"

Nope. Lack of evidence is not premise to reject a hypothesis/claim. It remains in quantum superposition until you can disprove it or prove it. You can dismiss it, if you care to. But being here arguing against it is not being dismissive.

"It is completely fair to attribute atrocities, particularly those in the name of a supposed god, to the god they believe in (if the god exists). That god, if it existed, has not stepped in to stop those atrocities."

Yes, it makes complete sense to blame something that "doesn't exist" for something that happened. /s

"faith is not an avenue to truth"

No? Not ever?

If we could ever agree on what "god" means, (or could mean) maybe we can have a meaningful conversation. It looks like you are hung up on a rough sketch based on irrationality [sic].
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
@tabzer Whether or not a belief is “sincere” is irrelevant to its truthfulness and its rationality/irrationality. There are people who are sincere in their beliefs in UFO abductions, Big Foot, etc. It doesn’t mean these beliefs are rational.

Since there is no evidence for the claim that a god exists, it is irrational, by definition, to believe that a god exists. If someone cares if their beliefs are true, they cannot hold irrational beliefs. It really is that simple.

To say “irrationality is just your god of the gaps” makes no logical sense. Irrationality, by definition, means “without reason.” Instead of hemming and hawing about whether or not “irrationality exists,” you could just argue that a god belief is rational and provide what you think is evidence for a god’s existence.

Saying “there is no evidence” or “no evidence has been provided” is in response to the claim that a god exists, and it doesn't carry a burden proof. The god claim has the burden of proof. If you want to argue there is evidence of a god’s existence, you must provide the evidence.

I recommend reading up on logic, epistemology, and the burden of proof. The default position, if one cares if their beliefs are true, is always to reject a claim or hypothesis until evidence has been provided to support the claim/hypothesis. This is Logic 101. Otherwise, you would have to accept my claim that an invisible unicorn exists, for example. I am going to assume you were using the term “quantum superposition” figuratively, because it has nothing to do with this conversation. What I think you meant by it is that a claim, when first provided to you, is in a state of not being known by you yet to be true or untrue. However, you cannot accept the claim to be true until a time in which you have evidence to support the claim (if you care if your beliefs are true).

It makes sense to blame something that “doesn’t exist” for something that happened when you’re making a point using a hypothetical. If a god exists that is all-powerful and all-knowing who has the ability to stop atrocities, for example, then that god can be held responsible for not stopping atrocities. I am not arguing that this god exists; I am making a point about what kind of god that deity is if it were to exist, and I’m making a point that very specific god concepts cannot exist (e.g. a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent being unable to exist in a world where atrocities occur unincumbered).

No, faith is demonstrably not a pathway to truth, and it’s literally as effective as random chance. Faith is belief without evidence, which means there is nothing you couldn’t believe on faith (including false claims). If your goal was to figure out which life-saving medicine you should use for your relative, for example, would you use faith to find it, or would you use reason and evidence?

It is not my job to define “God” for you, since I am not the one who believes a god exists and therefore lack a specific concept of “God.” All I can do is be aware of the various god concepts other people believe in. In no way can you say I’m hung up on any god concept. That’s absurd. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, you’d have to define the god that you believe in (it doesn’t have to be extensive) and articulate what evidence you have for the existence of that god. Until and unless you can do that, you have to concede that belief in a god is irrational as far as you’re aware.
 

tabzer

This place is a meme.
Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
5,844
Trophies
1
Age
39
XP
4,910
Country
Japan
@Lacius
"Whether or not a belief is 'sincere' is irrelevant to its truthfulness and its rationality/irrationality"

Sincerity, by definition, is free from pretence and deceit. Self-deception and conflicting with reality is not an option.

"Since there is no evidence for the claim that a god exists"

Unverifiable and overreaching. Absurd claims are not free from the burden of proof just because they are in response to something.

"...or 'no evidence has been provided'"

Pussyfooting.

"To say 'irrationality is just your god of the gaps' makes no logical sense. Irrationality, by definition, means 'without reason.'"

Hard to believe this needs clarity. You seem to think things happen without reason, but I see that as a crutch/excuse for not having an explanation. You use the word "irrational" in the same manner others say "god did it". Instead of saying "god did it", you say, "it's irrational".

You are hung up on the mean man in the sky fairytale. It's not really a secret. You have your own ideas. That's fine. I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about "god" at this point of your life.

"Until and unless you can do that, you have to concede that belief in a god is irrational as far as you’re aware."

No I don't. I don't have to dismiss what I know because I don't want to share it with you. You can fuck off.

Nothing is truly irrational as far as I am aware. I trust (faith) that there is an explanation.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
@tabzer Just because a person is sincere in their beliefs does not mean there’s any reason to think that belief comports with reality. As I previously said, the sincerity of a belief is irrelevant to its truthfulness. Per my previous example, there are people who are completely sincere in their beliefs in Big Foot, UFO abductions, and the Earth being flat, but their sincerity is not evidence of their claims being true. People can hold beliefs for bad reasons and still be sincere, as demonstrated by my examples. You say “self-deception” and “conflicting with reality” are not options if a belief is sincere, but that is not true. A person can be completely sincere in their belief in the Earth being flat, for example, while still engaging in self-deception and accepting a claim that does not comport with reality. Sincerity only means the belief is real without any outward deceit; however, it does not mean the claim is real or that there isn’t any inward deceit. If you are not arguing that Big Foot, UFO abductions, and Flat Eartherism (for example) are rational beliefs, then we can put the topic of sincerity to bed.

If you are going to argue that a god exists, or that the belief in a god is rational, you are required to provide evidence. If you are going to argue that there is evidence of a god’s existence, you are required to provide it. The burden of proof is not on the person asking you to meet yours.

I do not know what you mean when you say “you seem to think things happen without reason,” so I’ll wait for clarification before responding. I do not use the word “irrational” in the same manner as others say “God did it.” I use the word “irrational” to say that a claim has not met its burden of proof. That is all.

I am not hung up on the “mean man in the sky fairytale.” This is one of many god concepts. If you have a different god concept you believe in, great. I’m more interested in what evidence you have that makes your belief rational. If you cannot articulate any evidence to believe your god exists, that’s fine, but don’t pretend then that the belief is rational. It isn’t, by definition.

If you cannot articulate any reason to believe a god exists, then you have to concede that you are unaware of any reason to think a god exists, and that’s what irrationality is. It’s as simple as that. If you want to continue believing in a god despite the belief being irrational, that’s your prerogative, but don’t argue it isn’t without evidence when you cannot articulate any evidence.

By definition, something is irrational if you cannot provide any reason/evidence in support of the claim. Pretending the word doesn’t exist doesn’t change that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Sorry for accidentally bending over