Theism vs. Atheism, New Atheism, God as a scientific hypothesis, and a lot more

[73109]

If we want to get into the agnostic vs atheist debate, I'll use Richard Dawkin's theist scale. 1 being I know for a fact there is a god and 7 being I know for a fact there is no god. I, like many other atheists, would be a 6. This is because I can't disprove the existence of god, but I find his existence so improbable that I live my life as though he didn't exist. I am, by definition, an agnostic, but Atheist makes it a bit easier to swallow. As Richard Dawkins said, "I'm agnostic to the existence of god to the same extent I'm agnostic to the existence of fairies."

I have watched William Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens and it came to me as no surprise that I was in agreement with Hitchens. I remember Craig made 5 arguments, 3 of which I remember.

1. God exists because there needs to be a creator to set everything in motion. Now, many consider this to be false. This is where I turned to Stephen Hawking.

2. Morality wouldn't exist without a God. As smart as William Craig is, and I'll give him that, this is by far the shittiest argument for a god. He assumes (something you can never do) that we have a universal morality, something that I don't think we do. So, his argument is based on an assumption which makes it "illogical," and therefore, philosophically irrelevent.

3. Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. All he points to is the fact that two chicks went looking for his body and it wasn't there, and that the Apostles didn't steal it. Shit evidence if you ask me.

To be completely honest, I forgot the other two arguments. I've been planning on watching the debate again.

Cole, if I were to come to disbelief in God, it wouldn't be through Dawkins or the other prominent members of New Atheism.

I see no problem in treating God like a hypothesis. I also have no problem using science and reason to "disprove" a God. It will forever more remain a pissing contest, and I will remain on the side that promotes logic and reason, not faith. If you want to continue this, start another thread. I'd rather not get into the whole God vs. No God debate in the middle of James' thread.

edit: And I just watched another video of his. His "ontological argument" has been proven over the years to be so fallacious, it isn't even funny. Descartes was the first to say, "I have a vision of perfection. I am not perfect, therefore God must exist because he is perfect." This is called "begging the question," and is also famous for bringing about the "Cartesian circle." I know god exists because I have a vision of him. I have a vision of him because I know God exists. From a purely logical standpoint, it makes zero sense.

[Ħ]

Craig has some meh arguments that can be easily dismissed, such as the morality one you mentioned, but he has some extremely solid ones which work just fine for me.

[73109]

Like?

His (and many others) 3 main arguments are the ontological, teleological, and the cosmological, and none of them hold any logical or scientific merit.

And by the way, so everyone is in on what's up, the posts that started this were:

If you don't mind me asking: what are your reasons for not believing in God? Forgive me if this comes across as hostile; I ask simply out of curiosity. I find that most reasons atheists give for their lack of belief on God are too often either shallow or emotional. Too many peoples are too easily tricked by shallow, emotional or pseudo-logical "arguments" provided by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and heir ilk.

And sorry for doing the whole "first post" creeper thing to you...

Just a note before I type the rest. This is my personal opinion based on a question I was asked. I don't want to start a bunch of shit, and I don't want to open a can of worms.

Now, Omega, what you consider "shallow, emotional, and 'pseudo-logical'" arguments given by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris (who I have admittidly not read any of, as opposed to the first two,) I consider logical and full of reason. Logic and reason, in my opinion, are 2 things the God theory lacks. There are definitely questions that we can't answer now, but that doesn't mean that we need to turn to an invisible, all knowing, all loving God. We just don't know the answers as of now. I don't see why "I don't know" needs to yield an answer involving a invisible figure. Now, you will have theists and atheists alike saying science can not disprove God, nor can it prove it. However, I believe science has made the probability of God's existance next to next to nothing. Everything needs to have an explanation, and when we don't know and turn to God, it does a disservice to everything science works toward. I don't want to sound hostile, but to me, God makes no sense. Religion as a whole doesn't make sense. If you were to examine the bible, there are hundreds of instances in which most of us would go, "Uh...dude?" God doesn't need to exist for the world to make sense, and a world with God doesn't make sense. I was always on the verge of this idea, but recently, I've changed to be more adamant about it. I took a philosophy class, which got me thinking more in depth about this stuff. I read bits of books and articles (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Hawking), I've watched debates between thesist and non theists, and I have come to the conclusion that God does not exist.

Hope that sorts everything out.

Well... I don't mean to pry, (nor do I mean to harrass you with posts) but I'm not entirely convinced you provided any concrete reasons why you don't believe in (a) God. From your post I understood that you believe God's existence is somehow unfeasible or otherwise incompatible with the universe. It would be interesting to hear you elaborate on that as well.

Furthermore, would not the stance of "we / I don't know" lead to an agnostic position on the existence of God? After all, the position of atheism has always traditionally meant to positively and wholly assert that (a) God does not exist. Many famous atheists have, though, quite successfully (yet erroneously) attempted to redefine atheism as a general "lack of belief" in any gods in order to not be committed to any defendable (or indefensible) position.

I also highly reccommend you watch some debate videos by William Lane Craig as he debates many famous atheists or his criticisms on Dawkins' God Delusion and of Hawking's recent publications (actually, Lane Craig practically covers almost any imaginable dilemma proposed against God's existence).

Cole, if I were to come to disbelief in God, it wouldn't be through Dawkins or the other prominent members of New Atheism.

And that led to the OP

[Ħ]

Like?

His (and many others) 3 main arguments are the ontological, teleological, and the cosmological, and none of them hold any logical or scientific merit.

Nope.  But I'll get to this tomorrow.

[73109]

Teleological:

The world is so perfect, it must have been created by an all powerful being. This is also not a solid argument. Many Christian apologists want to use this as proof of a God, but if you want to think logically, things work out. Admittidly, the odds of us turning up and our world being the perfect place to live are INSANE, but think...the big bang happened 14.7 billion years ago, and there are over 50 billion galaxies with more in planets. Odds are, in 14.7 billion years with billions of planets, one of them is bound to strike gold.


Cosmological:

There must be a first cause. Most scientists nowadays don't think so. There are new discoveries in quantum physics everyday that are turning this argument for God into a fallacious one.

Anyways, I'm going to bed. I'll check out the thread and talk more in the morning. I have one favor to all. Please keep this civil. We are mature dudes here. If William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens can go at it for 2 hours civily, so can we.

[Ħ]

Hold your horses and read this:

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

[73109]

To be honest, I'm not going to sit through multiple 2 hour debates just to grab quotes from what I already know was said. Just as I am sure you will not go through all 400 some pages of The God Delusion to refute whatever it is I say. We are way too fucking lazy.

[Ħ]

No.  You're sorely misrepresenting those two arguments.  Be patient and wait for either me, Omega, or whoever else to properly present it.

[73109]

To quote my philosophy book:

Cosmological:

There must be:

An unmoved mover
An uncaused cause
A necessary being
A standard for perfection
A source of order and purpose

Teleological:

The universe is so skillfully and intricately made that there must be a universe maker-just as the existence of a watch argues for a watch maker

Those are word for word, and my points still stand...in my opinion of course.

[Perpetual Change]

1. God exists because there needs to be a creator to set everything in motion. Now, many consider this to be false. This is where I turned to Stephen Hawking.

What's the alternative, then? Maybe it can't be proven, but I find the alternative explanation (or lack thereof) to be pretty dismal. From a purely subjective stand-point, I find the traditional explanation that's cropped up in every corner of the Earth to be ultimately compelling. That explanation is, of course, that some sort of "higher power" must have at least given something a push to allow it to get started.

[Ħ]

I don't like that Cosmological argument.  There's a couple nutty things in it.  I prefer the "Argument from Contingency".

And do you notice for the Teleological argument, you changed the wording?  In your earlier post, you used the world is the focus point.  In your newest post, the entire universe is the focus point.  Big difference.

[MasterShakezula]

Um, tell me if I'm weird:

I was never brought into religion by my father's family, who I live with (I guess they're non-religious), and had never heard of religion until elementary school.  My entire life, I've never believed in the supernatural, aside from the potential existence of extraterrestrials on planets similar to the Earth, (ie. rocky, has liquid water at the surface, non-poisonous atmosphere, no high-pressure runaway greenhouse condition, is orbiting within the habitability zone).  The idea of a divine being having supreme authority and power has never clicked with my mind.  I do agree with many moral values (that are supposed) to be practiced by followers of Judeo-Christian religion, though.  I really do not see a need to be in conflict with the religious at all; they are entitled to their beliefs just as much as I am to my own, and I respect them and their POV of the universe.  There's no personal need for me to go out of my way to try and disprove religion or conflict with it, as I'm completely comfortable and confident in my non-belief, just as a practice-er of a religion would be in their belief. 

[El JoNNo]

I've have yet to hear anything from Craig that even made sense, let alone be convincing. He often just makes assumptions and leaps then claims it to be true. I'll be interested in reading what you say on this Mr. Ħ.   

[GuineaPig]

1. God exists because there needs to be a creator to set everything in motion. Now, many consider this to be false. This is where I turned to Stephen Hawking.

What's the alternative, then? Maybe it can't be proven, but I find the alternative explanation (or lack thereof) to be pretty dismal. From a purely subjective stand-point, I find the traditional explanation that's cropped up in every corner of the Earth to be ultimately compelling. That explanation is, of course, that some sort of "higher power" must have at least given something a push to allow it to get started.

Why is the default position for the universe have to be non-existent?  Couldn't it have always existed?

[73109]

The Argument from Contingency
(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

3 is an assumption and 4 is an assumption as well. Just because something could have possibly not existed, doesn't mean it needs to have a reason for existing. Also, 4 is a super assumption because one could just as easily point to the big bang as the "cause."

As for the teological argument, there are a number of flaws in it. The entire watchmaker analogy doesn't hold up once you realize that we are biased creatures. The entire idea came from being in a woods, surrounded by nature, and if you were to find a watch lying on the ground, you would know it was not like the surrounding area and therefore designed. This is simply not true. What the creaters of this argument did not take into account is that we have preconceived notions of objects and their "makers." If I were to land on another planet that supported life, I would have absolutely no idea what was and wasn't "man made."

As for the fine tuning argument, everything we think of is in hindsight. We like to say that the odds of the air we breath actually coming about as a perfect mixture of different gases are insane, which is but one thing that leads to a designer. This is faulty because we can't assume this.

Now comes Richard Dawkins. If the world is insanely complex, its creator needs to be more complex, and its creator needs to be more complex, so on and so forth forever. Now, I don't want to use the whole "but what came before God argument," but when discussing the teological argument for the existence of God, it needs to surface. Die hard Christians can point to the assumption that God is God and doesn't follow normal human logic and science, but in discussing the existence of God from a philosophical, logical, and somewhat scientific perspective, that argument holds no weight.

[Ben_Jamin]

I find this whole debate to be pretty useless. Its people arguing over wheter one is true, while they should work together to understand While their may be a "god" he might not exist as many want him to.

To me, to truely understand if their is one. One must shut out all technology and learn to survive in the wild. You'll understand the simplicity in the complexity of the world. How technology has devolved us. Because in Jesus' times they didn't have internet or electronics, all was done with natural things. Plus, I bet the unnatural/mystcal Unknown was known. Its really hard to explain these things without dwelling into other topics as everything is connected.

[Chino]

I hate the Morality argument. I have several family members that believe strongly in that argument. Morality, in my mind, is just one of millions of aspects of human beings that has allowed us to survive. If we didn't have a sense of morality, we never would have made it as a species. And what is the point of the morality argument in the first place? It's not like humans are the only living creatures that show signs of morality. If every other species brutally murdered it's own for no apparent reasons, then there might be an argument. I never understood why morality being a necessary element of survival to be such a hard concept to grasp. I think morality is nothing more than some of the oldest laws programmed into the DNA of every most organisms.

[Omega]

If we want to get into the agnostic vs atheist debate, I'll use Richard Dawkin's theist scale. 1 being I know for a fact there is a god and 7 being I know for a fact there is no god. I, like many other atheists, would be a 6. This is because I can't disprove the existence of god, but I find his existence so improbable that I live my life as though he didn't exist. I am, by definition, an agnostic, but Atheist makes it a bit easier to swallow. As Richard Dawkins said, "I'm agnostic to the existence of god to the same extent I'm agnostic to the existence of fairies."

I have watched William Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens and it came to me as no surprise that I was in agreement with Hitchens. I remember Craig made 5 arguments, 3 of which I remember.

1. God exists because there needs to be a creator to set everything in motion. Now, many consider this to be false. This is where I turned to Stephen Hawking.

2. Morality wouldn't exist without a God. As smart as William Craig is, and I'll give him that, this is by far the shittiest argument for a god. He assumes (something you can never do) that we have a universal morality, something that I don't think we do. So, his argument is based on an assumption which makes it "illogical," and therefore, philosophically irrelevent.

3. Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. All he points to is the fact that two chicks went looking for his body and it wasn't there, and that the Apostles didn't steal it. Shit evidence if you ask me.

To be completely honest, I forgot the other two arguments. I've been planning on watching the debate again.

Cole, if I were to come to disbelief in God, it wouldn't be through Dawkins or the other prominent members of New Atheism.

I see no problem in treating God like a hypothesis. I also have no problem using science and reason to "disprove" a God. It will forever more remain a pissing contest, and I will remain on the side that promotes logic and reason, not faith. If you want to continue this, start another thread. I'd rather not get into the whole God vs. No God debate in the middle of James' thread.

edit: And I just watched another video of his. His "ontological argument" has been proven over the years to be so fallacious, it isn't even funny. Descartes was the first to say, "I have a vision of perfection. I am not perfect, therefore God must exist because he is perfect." This is called "begging the question," and is also famous for bringing about the "Cartesian circle." I know god exists because I have a vision of him. I have a vision of him because I know God exists. From a purely logical standpoint, it makes zero sense.

Again I must press you on this, 73108987: You have not provided any reasons why you do not believe in (a) God. So far, you have only expressed (quite ludicrous) "criticisms" of Lane Craig and of various arguments. Yet your "criticisms" - if we can even call them that - have basically amounted to insignificant "well this argument is terrible" or "this argument is illogical". The way you speak of these arguments (I would say) serves only to lessen your credibility, capability of grasping the arguments and premises, or, worse - point to deliberate ignorance by cause of arrogance, emotion, or pride.

In order to justify your (arguably vocal) stance as an atheist, you must not only tactfully and soundfully (attempt) to tear down opposing arguments (pardon the hostile imagery of 'tear down') but you must also, if successful, then build a case to support your worldview.

And to be perfectly blunt, I've little interest in arguing what (insert name here) thinks about what atheism should mean. If they want to challenge every credible dictionary in the world and rebel against a millennia of tradition, then I would certainly wish them luck. Such a "semantic" issue is extremely peripheral to me.

I would much rather concentrate on more important discussions than in the viable survival of a conveniently crafted stance.

[Perpetual Change]

Die hard Christians can point to the assumption that God is God and doesn't follow normal human logic and science, but in discussing the existence of God from a philosophical, logical, and somewhat scientific perspective, that argument holds no weight.

That's an incredibly narrow, and boring, view of what "philosophy" is, IMO

[Sigz]

You have not provided any reasons why you do not believe in (a) God

What kind of reason are you looking for? The only reason there can be to not believe in something is that there is no reason to believe in it.

[Omega]

You have not provided any reasons why you do not believe in (a) God

What kind of reason are you looking for? The only reason there can be to not believe in something is that there is no reason to believe in it.

An explanation of why (name) thinks God's existence is unfeasible. Such as "I don't believe in God because His existence would be contradictory to the behavior of the Universe" or "because evil exists," etc, etc.

[73109]

Again I must press you on this, 73108987: You have not provided any reasons why you do not believe in (a) God. So far, you have only expressed (quite ludicrous) "criticisms" of Lane Craig and of various arguments. Yet your "criticisms" - if we can even call them that - have basically amounted to insignificant "well this argument is terrible" or "this argument is illogical". In order to justify your (arguably vocal) stance as an atheist, you must not only tactfully and soundfully (attempt) to tear down opposing arguments (pardon the hostile imagery of 'tear down') but you must also, if successful, then build a case to support your worldview.

When speaking scientifically, logically, and philosophically, how is it that illogical arguments hold no weight? All of Craig's arguments either beg questions or start with false premises or draw false conclusion, all of which make arguments invalid.

Die hard Christians can point to the assumption that God is God and doesn't follow normal human logic and science, but in discussing the existence of God from a philosophical, logical, and somewhat scientific perspective, that argument holds no weight.

That's an incredibly narrow, and boring, view of what "philosophy" is, IMO

I have come to gather through a class, books, and discussions that when an argument presents logical fallacies, they are no longer valid. I'm not being hostile, as you are allowed to think whatever, and I welcome it. However, do you think that when someone brings up a valid argument against God's omnipotence, a rebuttal involving God and how he doesn't conform to human logic and science is valid?

You have not provided any reasons why you do not believe in (a) God

What kind of reason are you looking for? The only reason there can be to not believe in something is that there is no reason to believe in it.

This exactly. Granted, I can't disprove God, just like Omega or Ħ can't prove him, however, I can make an argument that states that the possibility of God's existence is so minute, that no one should seriously consider him to be a possibility. If you want to argue sementics, I'm agnostic, but to paraphrase Dawkins, I'm about as agnostic as I am agnostic of the existence of fairies in a happy rainbow land.

[bosk1]

...however, I can make an argument that states that the possibility of God's existence is so minute, that no one should seriously consider him to be a possibility.

Now that I would love to see.  You would be the first in history to do so.

[Jamesman42]

...however, I can make an argument that states that the possibility of God's existence is so minute, that no one should seriously consider him to be a possibility.

Now that I would love to see.  You would be the first in history to do so.

[73109]

I don't want to get side tracked, but all I'll say is that when you consider the arguments for God, the arguments against God, and science, the "odds" for a God are insane. In my opinion, one of the main reasons religion, and by extension God, is still around, is because religious people can mold God to take any form they want to keep God within the parlence of the times (man.)

First, God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day of creation. Then, we discovered a little thing called evolution. There goes Adam and Eve. Then, we found out the world was actually 4.6 billion years old. There goes 6 days and 6,000 years. Then, God did those things. God was the cause of the big bang, and God caused evolution. So, God created millions of species just to kill them off to end up with what we have now.

First, God was omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. Then came omnipotence paradoxes and the problem of evil. Then all of a sudden, God was more of a overarching, loving dude.

God is constantly evolving to fit the times, and as long as that continues to happen, you are correct, I can not provide an argument that shows the odd's of God's existence as minute. However, if God is constantly changing, doesn't that seem quite Un-Godlike. His followers keep needing to change his image in order to fit modern science. Even that in it of itself is an argument against God.

[ehra]

First, God was omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. Then came omnipotence paradoxes and the problem of evil. Then all of a sudden, God was more of a overarching, loving dude.

I never saw how "evil" was ever an issue with God. If, for the sake of that argument, you're assuming that God is the source of all Good then evil is just the lack of the presence of that good unless we can cite any "source of all evil."

God is constantly evolving to fit the times, and as long as that continues to happen, you are correct, I can not provide an argument that shows the odd's of God's existence as minute. However, if God is constantly changing, doesn't that seem quite Un-Godlike. His followers keep needing to change his image in order to fit modern science. Even that in it of itself is an argument against God.

If you're treating God as a scientific hypothesis then why wouldn't humans change their view of him as they discover more about how the reality works? This being any kind of evidence against God assumes that humans as a collective have perfect interpretation of ancient texts and are then going back and twisting the meanings of those texts, which, considering how often these discussions delve into arguments about what the word "atheist" means, is laughable.

Not to mention that you're using humanity's own failing (lack of understanding of him) against God himself (saying that humanity's changing views on Him is "Un-Godlike" on his own part).

[Perpetual Change]

I have come to gather through a class, books, and discussions that when an argument presents logical fallacies, they are no longer valid. I'm not being hostile, as you are allowed to think whatever, and I welcome it. However, do you think that when someone brings up a valid argument against God's omnipotence, a rebuttal involving God and how he doesn't conform to human logic and science is valid?

Just because pop-scientists have said there's no proof off something doesn't mean that speculating on it is bad philosophy, as you offered up earlier. In fact, some of the very best philosophical discussions have centered around hypotheticals.

Futhermore, maybe there's not a lot of proof of god's existence. But there's not a lot of proof of what and how we were created in the beginning, either. It seems to me that you think being able to point out contradictions in Christianity gives you the right to discount the hypothesis of a higher-power entirely. It does not.

It's a shame. So many people start out on the right foot with philosophy, but in the rush to pretend to have answers wind-up skipping steps. Let's be clear-- something is "true" when every other hypothesis has been proven false.  I think it's very possible that a supernatural being created the universe somehow, and since there's no currently accepted and proven hypothesis that differs from this, I don't see what the problem with it is. In fact, given the ridiculous amounts we don't know about the universe, even pretending to have concrete answers on the nature of God, the Universe, and everything else is just as lol-worthy as they arguments you are going against. You seem to think that being able to prove the earth wasn't created in 6 days, 7 nights (as per according to Christianity) gives you a free-pass to reject the possibility of God entirely. In reality, I'm willing to bet that  the true nature of God and the universe are infinitely more awesome and mindblowing than anything Hitchens, Dawkins or Craig can tell you.

[73109]

First, God was omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. Then came omnipotence paradoxes and the problem of evil. Then all of a sudden, God was more of a overarching, loving dude.

I never saw how "evil" was ever an issue with God. If, for the sake of that argument, you're assuming that God is the source of all Good then evil is just the lack of the presence of that good unless we can cite any "source of all evil."

God is constantly evolving to fit the times, and as long as that continues to happen, you are correct, I can not provide an argument that shows the odd's of God's existence as minute. However, if God is constantly changing, doesn't that seem quite Un-Godlike. His followers keep needing to change his image in order to fit modern science. Even that in it of itself is an argument against God.

If you're treating God as a scientific hypothesis then why wouldn't humans change their view of him as they discover more about how the reality works? This being any kind of evidence against God assumes that humans as a collective have perfect interpretation of ancient texts and are then going back and twisting the meanings of those texts, which, considering how often these discussions delve into arguments about what the word "atheist" means, is laughable.

Not to mention that you're using humanity's own failing (lack of understanding of him) against God himself (saying that humanity's changing views on Him is "Un-Godlike" on his own part).

The problem of evil is an argument stating that logically, if God exists, there should be no evil. To counter it, a theists needs to say that God gave us free will. This brings about a second argument stating that if evil exists, the odds of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God are slim. Not to mention the problems that come about when we consider free will.

And as for the second part of your post. I agree that the conception of God is bound to change, however, with so many different theories, it only furthers the notion that a God does not exist. What I mean is...

When you consider how many different religions have a higher power, and how many different people have a different interpretation of God, the odds of a God existing get smaller. Why is it that Jews believe what they believe, Hindus believe what they believe, Christians believe what they believe, Muslims believe what they believe, etc.

Each religion has its own God(s,) and within that religion, there are many different attributes God can take. The fact that there are a million different versions of God furthers the idea that God is improbable.

And what I mean by "God changes with the times" was simply me stating that as long as there were religious people around to stick God into modern science in whichever way they see fit, God will never be 100% disprovable.

I have come to gather through a class, books, and discussions that when an argument presents logical fallacies, they are no longer valid. I'm not being hostile, as you are allowed to think whatever, and I welcome it. However, do you think that when someone brings up a valid argument against God's omnipotence, a rebuttal involving God and how he doesn't conform to human logic and science is valid?

Just because pop-scientists have said there's no proof off something doesn't mean that speculating on it is bad philosophy, as you offered up earlier. In fact, some of the very best philosophical discussions have centered around hypotheticals.

Futhermore, maybe there's not a lot of proof of god's existence. But there's not a lot of proof of what and how we were created in the beginning, either. It seems to me that you think being able to point out contradictions in Christianity gives you the right to discount the hypothesis of a higher-power entirely. It does not.

It's a shame. So many people start out on the right foot with philosophy, but in the rush to pretend to have answers wind-up skipping steps. Let's be clear-- something is "true" when every other hypothesis has been proven false.  I think it's very possible that a supernatural being created the universe somehow, and since there's no currently accepted and proven hypothesis that differs from this, I don't see what the problem with it is. You seem to think that being able to prove the earth wasn't created in 6 days, 7 nights (as per according to Christianity) gives you a free-pass to reject the possibility of God entirely.

I definitely see where you are coming from. However, I disagree with your conclusions. I don't discount God because science proved Genesis to be false. That is but one reason. My personal beliefs, my personal experience, other accounts of religious innaccuracies, other realms of science, my personal logic, etc all draw me to the belief that God does not exist.

[Perpetual Change]

That's fine, I just haven't found a scientific explanation for how life and the universe begins that satisfies me anymore than "a higher, all-encompassing being did it."

[73109]

That was always my problem, but I'm reading a book called The Grand Design by Steven Hawking. In it, he states that because the law of gravity exists and the laws of quantum mechanics exist, the universe could have created itself out of nothing.

[MasterShakezula]

PC, though I am non-religious and do not agree with you, I have no issue with your view, and feel it's as valid a view as my own.

I do have a question: what aspects of current scientific explanations for these unknowns bring you dissatisfaction?  

[Perpetual Change]

That was always my problem, but I'm reading a book called The Grand Design by Steven Hawking. In it, he states that because the law of gravity exists and the laws of quantum mechanics exist, the universe could have created itself out of nothing.

Not sure I follow that, but maybe I'll check it out?

I do have a question: what aspects of current scientific explanations for these unknowns bring you dissatisfaction? 

OK, like, for example, I have no issue with evolution and the big-bang. But what about before that? What if there's more than one universe, with multiple big bangs? What if, as Michio Kaku suggests, there's entire dimensions that we possibly can't even see? I mean, we know so little about the universe and soon we're not even going to have the Hubble telescope to look and what's going on in (what are to us, the far reaches). It just makes no sense to me how anyone could say, at this point, "scientific explanations that don't include a higher power have, thus far, been sufficient so there's no need to speculate any further about a higher power."

[Adami]

That was always my problem, but I'm reading a book called The Grand Design by Steven Hawking. In it, he states that because the law of gravity exists and the laws of quantum mechanics exist, the universe could have created itself out of nothing.

The universe may have created itself out of nothing, and it might have been created by something else. At no point in your life will the answer be known, think about it all you want, but be cool with not knowing and be cool with other people having their ideas.


Personally, I am a believer in intelligent design, but I don't believe in any gods. I'm so awesome.


But guys who are arguing with Cole; mostly you Mr. Red (10 points to anyone who catches it), he doesn't believe in a god because he doesn't believe in a god, probably for the same reason that you do believe in god, because it makes most sense to you. Making him come up with reasons YOU like is why he is bringing up all the highschool philosophy stuff, that has nothing to do with WHY he doesn't believe in god, he's just reaching to find some way to justify something that makes internal sense to him because you don't accept that as a good enough answer.

[MasterShakezula]

To PC:

I am not sure, myself, about the universe, beyond the big bang theory being the most probable beginning and indefinite expansion, leading to long-term heat death being the most probable ultimate outcome of the universe in which we live.  As for dimensions, I really cannot perceive any alternate ones beyond 1D (a line), 2D (a flat plane), and 4D having something to do with time, I think.  

As for the beginnings of life, well, that's somewhat clear, vagulely.

Research has been done where compounds that would of been commonplace in the primordial, 3.5 Bill (Clinton) BC Earth were placed in closed containers and exposed to what would of been the surface temperature of the Earth at the time, as well as massive electric shocks (Lightning was commonplace at the time).  What happened, was:

Many different amino acids formed.  Amino acids, made of combinations of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA, are the building blocks of proteins, and by extension, a huge amount of fundamental structuring of even the smallest organisms.  

So, we may be onto something.

[ehra]

First, God was omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. Then came omnipotence paradoxes and the problem of evil. Then all of a sudden, God was more of a overarching, loving dude.

I never saw how "evil" was ever an issue with God. If, for the sake of that argument, you're assuming that God is the source of all Good then evil is just the lack of the presence of that good unless we can cite any "source of all evil."

God is constantly evolving to fit the times, and as long as that continues to happen, you are correct, I can not provide an argument that shows the odd's of God's existence as minute. However, if God is constantly changing, doesn't that seem quite Un-Godlike. His followers keep needing to change his image in order to fit modern science. Even that in it of itself is an argument against God.

If you're treating God as a scientific hypothesis then why wouldn't humans change their view of him as they discover more about how the reality works? This being any kind of evidence against God assumes that humans as a collective have perfect interpretation of ancient texts and are then going back and twisting the meanings of those texts, which, considering how often these discussions delve into arguments about what the word "atheist" means, is laughable.

Not to mention that you're using humanity's own failing (lack of understanding of him) against God himself (saying that humanity's changing views on Him is "Un-Godlike" on his own part).

The problem of evil is an argument stating that logically, if God exists, there should be no evil.

....why? Like I just said in my post, that argument in of itself implies that "evil" is itself a "thing" that exists on its own and isn't just the state of something else (good) not being around.

To counter it, a theists needs to say that God gave us free will. This brings about a second argument stating that if evil exists, the odds of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God are slim. Not to mention the problems that come about when we consider free will.

1) I really don't get why we're talking about odds here. The "odds" of something being low doesn't change if it actually does or does not exist.

2) The "if god is omniscient and knows everything then there can't be free will because everything is predetermined" argument also never sat well with me; for how much it shows up in these discussions I think I'm just going to bite the bullet and finally read Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy.

Unless this is going to turn into that ridiculous discussion from however long ago about how free will doesn't exist because we don't make decisions at complete random, independently of any and all "outside" influence (including our own thoughts). 

And as for the second part of your post. I agree that the conception of God is bound to change, however, with so many different theories, it only furthers the notion that a God does not exist. What I mean is...

When you consider how many different religions have a higher power, and how many different people have a different interpretation of God, the odds of a God existing get smaller. Why is it that Jews believe what they believe, Hindus believe what they believe, Christians believe what they believe, Muslims believe what they believe, etc.

Each religion has its own God(s,) and within that religion, there are many different attributes God can take. The fact that there are a million different versions of God furthers the idea that God is improbable.

And what I mean by "God changes with the times" was simply me stating that as long as there were religious people around to stick God into modern science in whichever way they see fit, God will never be 100% disprovable.

You just said almost the exact same thing. Like, first you said that God is unlikely because humans can't get their story straight about him, then you say it again. What does Joe Bob bring wrong about God and how the universe works have to do with the likelihood of God existing?