The Case Against the Existence of God

You figure out that these qualities would be the only attributes of God that made sense.You could determine if a God as described in the OP would logically have produced such a universe as we see. If not, He does not exist. But it's very tricky.

Not much. But there are different degrees of sureness.I know that I exist a la Descartes. Beyond that the certainty goes down.

---

"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

Just out of curiosity, how did you calculate that probability?ABE: I think Faith explained it in Message 185?This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-07 02:10 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well I would deem that argument illogical.Making sense to us has nothing to do with gods attributes. In fact, I think the main attributes of god cannot make sense to us (omni-anything, for example). While this might be a possible argument to make, you couldn't determine if the god was described accurately. Still, I think the argument would be illogical.

This idea has to be original with you. I've never run across it before. I understand that it is your conclusion from your observation that there are only two possibilities about how the universe came to be, that either it has always been or it was brought into being by a conscious Being with the power and intelligence to do it.I'm not sure this translates into a 50-50 "chance" though. Or, hm, I guess that is further based on your observation that neither of these possibilities is provable? Is that what you said? In that case they are both equally possible.And if they are both equally possible, and there are no other possibilities, only many subsets of each, which others keep coming up with, then OK, I get it now, 50-50 possibility.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:05 PM

Why would it categorically be illogical?

No you have the wrong model in mind. It's the same as believing the statements of witnesses, Lfen. It is NOT the same as believing the Hari Krishnas, or Muslims, as their religion is not based on having witnessed anything, and it's easy to show the falseness of the Mormon's claims. But the Bible witnesses witnessed to historical events. It's exactly like believing in Australia without ever seeing it as I just got through arguing.

That's it.

But is what you are saying true? Are there really many witnesses of gnomes? Really? If there really are, then I'd give it a good shot at being true that there is in fact something real that they are calling gnomes. And in that case I would suppose that believing the stories might lead one to test them experimentally, if seeing a gnome is your idea of great fun, to follow whatever advice might lead one to witnessing them oneself.But it isn't the same thing because there really aren't a lot of witnesses to gnomes as you claim. And none of them claim the gnomes are God and that you could be saved by repenting and believing in them and so on. In other words, the Bible witnesses are altogether on a different plane. When I point out that the evidence is in believing, I'm not saying something trivial.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:20 PM

I don't know.Anyways...Making sense to us has nothing to do with gods attributes. In fact, I think the main attributes of god cannot make sense to us (omni-anything, for example).While this might be a possible argument to make, you couldn't determine if the god was described accurately.

quote:

---

All you have to do to "test" my facts is believe the witnesses, or the authorities as Robin puts it. Instead of raising a zillion objections to what they are saying, just make like a little child and believe that they are telling you the truth. It's that simple, as jar is so fond of saying about other stuff.

---

OK, let's walk up your tree of knowledge branch-by-branch.
You don't just believe those authorities without having built some confidence that they are indeed authorities.
On what basis do you grant them as the authorities instead of false teachers? (since they are no longer living, and would be considered "hearsay" in legal terms)

Yeah, well, here's the argument:There are 2 types of entities in the world: beings and things. Everything has to be one or the other.Now, there are 2 explanations for the origins of the universe:1. It was created by an eternal Being
2. It has always existed in some form.There are your choices. There are no others.Now let's suppose that #1 is true. What sort of Being would this have to be? It couldn't be a being that came from a thing; if so, it reverts back to choice #2. It could not, for example, be a pagan style-God that arose from Nature. Nature just means the universe. It would again revert to #2.No, it would have to be a Being that did not arise from anything. It would have to be eternal.But not only that. It would have to be a Being that had nothing behind it, no standard that it need to adhere to, for otherwise it would revert to #2.It would have to be an ideal Being, the answer to everything.It would have to be the Being described in the OP.

This thread was predicated on a particular idea about God that Robin calls the God of Western Tradition: Does anybody want to disagree that these are the attributes of the "God of Western Tradition?" That particular idea of God is certainly based on the Biblical God, but because of historical shifts in acceptance of the Bible, not completely the equivalent of the Biblical God. Nevertheless these attributes apply to all versions, the Deists' and the Unitarian Universalists' for instance. ABE: Also apply to the God of Judaism and Islam as well I believe. This part of the definition seems to have been problematic for some. I read it to mean that a God who could have brought this universe as we know it into existence would be a God who determines everything having to do with that universe, and a God therefore whose thoughts can't be merely subjective because it is not possible for there to be any thoughts contradictory to His -- valid thoughts anyway. Subjectivity implies many valid points of view. Objectivity implies final judgment, Truth.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:49 PM

Yes, certainly, but I also believe that in general people are too quick to dismiss what others tell them about various things. I think the discrediting of the Bible witnesses parallels this unfortunate habit toward all kinds of people. Nevertheless, yes, you are right in the most important sense. Predominantly the credibility and integrity of thousands through the millennia who have believed them. I originally believed them by believing Christians who wrote about them.Is it called hearsay if someone tells you what they saw? I don't think so.

Please, please, please read this. It's from a guide to logical fallacies.

---

"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