|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If nothing else, "I don't know" is always an acceptable third option. We were talking about atheism not agnosticism. Look at the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
We were talking about atheism not agnosticism. I'm aware. "I don't know how it happened" is not the same as "I don't know if God did it." "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Okay. Lets see if I'm thinking straight.
There are thousands of different religions in existence, all of which are supported by broadly equivalent proofs.* This means that if one of them is correct, then it would only be the accident of your birth or some other chance circumstance that would allow you access to this truth. If there isn't any way of recognising god's truth, then I find it really hard to imagine that, if we are beholden to a god, the god to whom we are beholden is in any recognisable human sense benevolent. I tend to believe that, considering the seemingly parochial or arbitrary nature of belief, you can most likely rule out any god that proports to be benevolent and simultaniously threatens punishment for unbelief. Obviously, that doesn't rule out a deistic deity, or even a malevolent one. Nor does it rule out an Abramic god who is benevolent but in a way that appears to mere humans to be malevolent. However, I think it makes the existence of an Abramic god, who is benevolent in a sense meaningful to humans, at least seem a bit questionable. It does for me, anyway. Does that make sense? It really wouldn't suprise me if it didn't. *This has nothing to do with this post really (I'm going off my own topic!), but one of my favourite proofs for a deity's existence is a version of the no true Scotsman fallacy that is sometimes used to support the truth of Islam. Basically, it runs that the Koran is obviously divinely inspired because no human could ever write a book like one of the divinely inspired books of the Koran. Of course, many have tried, but none have succeeded, even though the shortest book of the Koran is only a few lines long. Impressive, huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Does that make sense? It really wouldn't suprise me if it didn't. Yes, it makes sense to me. "It is very unhappy, but too late to be helped, the discovery we have made, that we exist. That discovery is called the Fall of Man."--Emerson
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
I guess in my mind a god that makes a rule agenst killing/murder wouldn't go agenst his law, but a god who did would not be considered good
since i don't know why god did things, becuase i can't ask him, i can only go by the fact that ending someones life for someone elses faults is evil
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
ps.: Spinoza's ideas are interesting: I don't know what I think of them yet. Damasio makes it even more interesting in this book in that he talks about how Spinoza lived his life and also ties Spinoza to Damasio contemporary explorations of consciousness and the human brain. Damasio is a joy to read. I always recommend all of his books. Looking for Spinoza : joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain Book Author : Damasio, Antonio R.Publisher, Date : Orlando, Fla. : Harcourt, c2003. - Edition : 1st ed. ISBN : 0151005575 - Description : x, 355 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. I'm open to either logical necessity or evidential necessity. Unfortunately my work and family are needing extra attention for the next couple of weeks so I wouldn't be writing much. Would have to let others carry this thread. I think ultimately I'd like evidence of divinity and not just logical inductions, deductions, etc. Only the most naive believers think that there is evidence or proof hence the emphasis on faith. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6225 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
If one is an atheist, then one must logically have a case against the existence of God. It would not do merely to show that the arguments put forth FOR the existence of God are flawed. That would work for an agnostic but not an atheist. An atheist, by definition, would, I think, have to have some reason for not believing in God in addition to flaws he has noticed in arguments for the existence of God. This is simply a category mistake. A (without) theism (belief in God) You're confusing atheist with antitheist. As someone who (I'm assuming) doesn't believe in undetectable massless eternal swarms of pixies, do you really have a reason not to believe in such lovable creatures?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Doc writes: Yet the fact that I feel pain has saved my hand from getting burned on a hot stove. The fact that I feel pain negates an all-good, all-powerful God. The fact that I feel pain has protected me from saddle sores while riding my bicycle. Pain is a useful feeling. The fact that I got my bottem spanked when I was a kid saved me from having no sense of morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Infixion writes:
MY Definition? Is there such a thing as an original thought?
I must admit, often I hear of the phrase "common sense" but rarely, if ever, is a definition attached to it. Both sides of the debate appear to use it, but what is your definition? Websters writes: common sense n : ordinary good sense and judgment Good sense is based on experience. Good sense is based in part on what one learns, but, more directly, on what one discovers to be verified again and again. Example: "Does it hurt when you do that?"Patient: Yes! "Then don't DO that! If religion and church people have hurt someone, chances are that the individual will no longer seek those avenues of enlightenment. This message has been edited by Phat, 04-06-2006 11:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
alias writes:
OK Dan! (I KNEW you would make me think, darn it! ) If this is the reason why God qualifies for special treatment, then your case against the existance of Green Lantern must also logically explain the validity and common sense approach of a universe without Green Lantern that is only explained to us by our own human wisdom. Are you thus suggesting that a possible alternative to my either/or reality is the possibility that both My God and your Green Lanturn can both simultaneously exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Well since you seem to know about the existance of God, do you ever wonder? -riVeRaT To be correct; I know about the existance of the belief in god. I have no knowledge of it's existance. That is the fundemental issue. If I had a decent reason to believe in a god, you bet I would! Eternal life for living by a few common sense rules? Easy. Give me any reason to believe in any god and I will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You nailed it there mate. I concur.
The massive amount of gods through history just goes to show that we beleived in such things long before christianity and will beleive in them long into the future. Ed: DVD extras This message has been edited by Larni, 04-07-2006 04:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
There's lots of things that we can't see that are real. You must have some better reason for dismissing the idea with contempt. Such as what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
As someone who (I'm assuming) doesn't believe in undetectable massless eternal swarms of pixies, do you really have a reason not to believe in such lovable creatures? If these pixies are the creators of the universe, then they are just another name for God. Otherwise, they are a different kind of entity altogether and cannot be compared to the concept of God. They are extraneous. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 03:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You're missing the point. You aren't presenting a God from belief. You are concocting a God and adding rules as you go along. On what do you base these rules, attributes, or choices? The God I "concocted" was one I thought was commonly believed in. I wanted to restrict the discussion to that concept for the purposes of this thread. That way we could concentrate on whether a case could be built against such a concept of God. As far as the origin of the universe, the choices I presented were not "concocted." These are the only 2 choices. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 03:31 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024