My 2 cents on this fine Sunday.

1) Empiricism. Is it true that if we have not apprehended X with our senses, then X does not exist? Look for counterexamples.
2) Experience. If we can experience an unappehended (with our senses) X, what is the ontological status of X?
3) Evidence. What is evidence? Is an experience (even if unapprehended by our senses, or communicable to others) evidence? — Mariner

1) I assume there are plenty things I've never perceived, many more than what I have perceived for sure. Novelties. I sure am not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.

2) Phenomenological. If I day/dream hallucinate fantasize feel love remember imagine, then whatever those are, they're part of me (when conscious). Referring back to (1), qualia is my personal end of perceiving something extra-self. Paraphrasing Searle, if anything significant differentiates perception⁽¹⁾ and hallucination⁽²⁾, then it must be the perceived.

3) Evidence could be anything. It's not pre-defined, it's shown.

The concept of God is the opposite of the concept of chance. There is no more proof for chance being the cause than God.

Eventually you just have to go to which side has more hard, scientific evidence. Nothing can has or will happen outside the laws of physics, this is a basic fact of life. Until someone shows me hard scientific evidence of a god then I am an atheist. Also on the basis of the argument of evil; the theist's argument is that 'god gave us free will' but if your argument against the Big Bang is cause and effect then you believe in cause and effect and therefore not in free will. That leaves two options :
1: there is no god
2: your god is not omni-benevolent
Due to god designing the world to create evil

Curious? Your debate seems to revolve around the existence of only one God,they are hundreds of gods past and present Who's version of god is correct ,is there a version of god you all agree with. ?

i may have also missed what you think god "is" exactly ? .Because he seems to be many things to many people.

[Delete] @Baden

I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. I am interested on all of your views, don't be afraid to comment. — GreyScorpio

There are many different conceptions of "God" and a variety of attributes assigned to those conceptions. It is hard to meaningfully talk about God and perhaps the most astute religious individuals take a rather mystical approach, "behind the veil of perception" or "through a glass darkly". The weakest forms of religion in my view attempt to "put God in a box" or "confine God to human cognitive abilities".

In the end I think the concept of God is about the search for larger meaning and purpose both in individual lives and in the larger world and universe. For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals and that is all there is and that is enough. Many, however, hope to find larger meaning and purpose in both their own lives and in the world at large. The notion that the universe is in the final analysis accidental and purposeless just does not satisfy the longing that humans have for larger purpose and meaning and flies in the face of our perception of the world as imbued with beauty, form, striving and creative advance.

Sure, the hope for life after death can play a role, and the security of having an answer to things we do not understand is there. Humans are in the end meaning and purpose seeking creatures and the notion of God plays a part in telling them how to live and where they fit into a larger picture.

laws of physics, — Joel Bingham

Are you speaking of something specific or is this just another placeholder for God.

Can you enumerate the Laws of Physics for me? What are you referring to? Are they proscriptive or descriptive? Have they existed forever or do they change?

I am referring to the known and proven laws of physics such as gravitational attraction. Basically what we know is possible and not possible if you can prove that the existence of a god is POSSIBLE and likely then sure there may be a god however with our current knowledge there cannot be a god.
Regarding your last question. Really? Do the laws of physics change? A law is something that IS not might or could be so no the laws of physics don’t change they’re just discovered giving the illusion of change to a person who beleived something was and know knows something is because it was proven however the latter always was and always will be. Furthermore I would like to invite you to create a new discussion on the proscriptive vs descriptive question as I would like to go into more detail with you on this topic page on which it is more relevant to the question.

@prothero

the notion of god plays a part in telling them how to live

I think that you’re getting off on the wrong foot here, humans know how to live because we have a moral compass. We do not need God to live well nor do I go into the street to kill and maim because I don’t believe in a god. People are hardwired to want to be good and yes maybe some people do bad things and don’t have remorse but aren’t some of those people Christians who believe it’s okay to be bad as long as you apologise to god?

I am referring to the known and proven laws of physics such as gravitational attraction. — Joel Bingham

Gravity is a phenomenon not a Law. We (our minds) observe this phenomenon. The phenomenon actually behaves differently at the micro and macro levels.

however with our current knowledge there cannot be a god. — Joel Bingham

I know if nothing in n science that precludes God. Rather science had to fabricate the concepts of the Big Bang and The Laws of Physics as placeholders for God. I listen to scientists throw around these concepts all the time hoping that the audience didn't notice that they are just words used as substitutes for God and Genesis.

Do the laws of physics change? — Joel Bingham

All the time. Just read the history of scientific thought and theories. And this only for a few hundred years. Do you have a theory or proof for the immutability of whatever is called the Laws of Physics? The term itself is undefinable.

they’re just discovered giving the illusion — Joel Bingham

Illusions begat illusions.

Only some people? You mean most people. At least get your facts straight.

Do not conflate a psychological inquiry with a philosophical one. People often do that with religion and ethics.

Define "God" and define "exists". If you start a thread, you've got to put more effort than that. Atheism is nowadays equivalent to intellectual laziness.

even God gets bored sometimes. Evil mixes things up a little.

Atheism is nowadays equivalent to intellectual laziness. — Johnblegen96

Religion has always been equivalent to intellectual stupefaction.

In the end I think the concept of God is about the search for larger meaning and purpose both in individual lives and in the larger world and universe. For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals and that is all there is and that is enough. Many, however, hope to find larger mea; and this is the decisive moment of the searching and purpose in both their own lives and in the world at large. The notion that the universe is in the final analysis accidental and purposeless just does not satisfy the longing that humans have for larger purpose and meaning and flies in the face of our perception of the world as imbued with beauty, form, striving and creative advance. — prothero

Dear Prothero,


Yes, well put, and I agree. As Aristotle famously observed, "human beings desire to know". Not only this, but they are the only creatures who know that they know.

What do humans desire to know? The answer must be that they desire to know the truth; that truth is the proper object of knowledge. As Saint Augustine teaches us:"I have met many men who wanted to deceive, but none who wished to be deceived".

The truth, I think, initially comes to human beings - it initially approaches us - as a question: "What is the meaning of life?"," Why do I exist?", "Is there a life after death?" At first sight human existence may seem completely meaningless. We do not need Albert Camus or other philosophers of the absurd to doubt that human life has meaning. The daily experience of suffering - in one's own life, and that of others, and the myriad facts we are aware of that seem utterly inexplicable to reason are enough to ensure that a question as dramatic as the question of meaning cannot be evaded. Moreover, the first absolutely certain truth of life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. Given this unsettling fact, I think that the search for a full answer is inescapable. Do you agree ? Am I right, that is, in assuming that you experience both the desire and the duty to know the truth of your own destiny? You desire to know if death will be the definitive end of your life, or, if there is something beyond - if it is possible to hope for an after-life or not ? You feel obligated - "duty-bound" - to know this . Right?

It seems to me that no one can avoid this questioning neither the philosopher nor you nor I nor any other human being. The answer we give is critical, for it will determine whether or not it is possible to attain universal and absolute truth;this is the most decisive moment of the search. Every truth - if it really is a truth - presents itself as universal, even if it is not the whole truth. If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. Beyond this universality, however, do you agree that people (human beings) are driven to seek an absolute truth, one which might give a meaning and a final, complete answer to all of their searching - something conclusive and ultimate which might serve as the ground of all things. Or, to put it another way, would you agree that we all seek a final explanation, a supreme value, which refers to nothing beyond itself and puts an end to all questioning. As you suggest in your post, - and I agree -, hypotheses may fascinate, but they do not satisfy; and I think that whether we admit it or not, there comes for us all a time - a moment - when personal existence must be anchored to to a truth recognized as final, an ultimate, absolute truth which confers a certitude that is no longer open to doubt. (On a personal note, I find I am increasingly inclined to believe that his final, absolute truth is the divine,supernatural, transcendent and eternal being those who are Christians call "God" - "God the Father Almighty").

Throughout the centuries philosophers have sought to discover and articulate such a truth, giving rise to countless systems and schools of thought. And beyond these systems of thought people have always sought to shape a "philosophy" of their own, - in personal convictions and experiences, in the traditions of family and culture, or in journeys in search of life's meaning under the guidance of a master. What inspires all of these is the desire to reach the certitude of the truth and the certitude of its absolute value.

My point is this...

It is unthinkable , is it not, that a search so deeply rooted in human nature would be completely vain and useless? The very capacity to search for truth and to pose questions itself implies the rudiments of a response. Surely, human beings would not even begin to search for something of which they knew nothing or something which they thought was wholly beyond them. Surely, It is only the sense that we can find an answer that leads us to take the first step? The same must be true of the search for truth when it comes to ultimate questions - namely, those big, radical questions we ask about the meaning of life and death.

The thirst for truth is so deeply rooted in the human heart that to be obliged to ignore it would cast our very existence into jeopardy. Everyday life shows well enough how we are each preoccupied by the pressure of a few fundamental questions and in the soul of each of us there is at least an outline of of the answers. One reason why the truth of these answers convinces is that they are no different in substance from the answers to which many others have come. Naturally, not every truth to which we come has the same value, but the sum of the results achieved confirms that in principle human beings can arrive at the truth. Right ?

So it seems to me, that sooner or later we all - each of us in our own different ways - arrive at a point in our lives where we must make a choice. We will be called to choose between either "God" (absolute, ultimate, final truth) or Nothingness ( living a life stripped of any authentic meaning or value, an existence that is merely a ridiculous, absurd prelude to the oblivion of eternal death)". However much we may TRY to deny it,TRY to lie to ourselves about it, TRY to dismiss it, TRY to delude ourselves that it is not the case, the hour of decision will come. (And) when it does, we must either confirm with all sincerity in our hearts and minds the existence of one, ultimate, absolute truth - the one truth that has the power to end all of our questionings - and then strive to know that truth,or, opt to live an existence of desperate lies, delusions and evasions in order to distract ourselves from the inevitability of a death where we have resigned ourselves to the grim conviction that death is death.

When you suggest that:

"For some, I suppose, we live, we die, we set our own values and goals, and that is all there is and that is enough".

I don't think for such persons that this is ever "enough". Rather, I think they always sense that there is, within their DIY world-view, something deeply unsound and unsatisfactory. Something consequently, that never really permits them any genuine peace of mind (?) They are the typically the ones who exhort us to "lighten up" and never to take the meaning of life too seriously. Sit back, they tell us and to enjoy the brief "ride" that is human life for what it is, - a mere stream of fleeting, ephemeral sensations. Learn how to laugh, they say, at the preposterous caper that is the human condition - though such laughter, whenever I hear it, always seems to me, unmistakably, a gallows humour.

What do you think?

Regards


Dachshund

When it is usually asked what evidence there is that there is a God, noone ever says what sort of thing would satisfy them. I could offer the fact that many biblical authors say things which entail that there is a God, but critics will say that doesn't count because I didn't prove that the bible is reliable. I could say that many people claim to have experiences of God, but the critic says that there is no reason to think they aren't hallucinations. I can show that the existence of God follows from various premises, but critics will claim that the premisee haven't been proven. One wonders, then, what is wanted in asking for evidence?

I don't believe that there is enough evidence for us to place complete trust and faith in this being that we have not seen, heard, or even experienced. I am interested on all of your views, don't be afraid to comment. — GreyScorpio

To think about existence of God, we can approach the problem in the following way:
What does the concept of God serve. There are a number of fundamental questions/ metaphysical questions answers to which are not satisfactorily known yet. Like some assumptions/ hypothesis in a scientific procedure, the concept of God can temporarily solve these problems and human being can carry on with regular business.

However there are many limitations of concept of God itself, I had posted in some other chain of posts:

Is God an intelligent being and creator of everything, why should He do so?
If He has created out of pleasure, then He is too irresponsible to break the perfect symmetry
If He has created out of kindness/ pity, then question is for whom was this kindness (there was nothing before in perfect condition), the unnecessary kindness is akin to ridicule/ mockery to His own creation
If He has created out of no reason, then He is an Idiot

What is the form of God?
If God is without a form/ body, it itself cannot initiate any creativity. If God is ultimate intelligent being, there must be someone more intelligent who created God. That's an infinite loop.

Overall, I would prefer to keep it simple and imagine that all matter, universe and the physical laws always existed.

PS: These are philosophical thoughts of early Indian Philosophers during 7th century BC (Buddhism, Jainism, some factions of Mimamsa etc.)

Mhm.. Mhm.. The thread seems to have started a successful discussion even with my atheistic laziness. I am not an atheist, as it were, and I think its incredibly unfair to call atheists lazy because they don't agree with the fact that there could be a being out there that we are not able to sense. It's called strong empiricism, not laziness. If anything, the belief in a non-identifiable being that had created the world in 7 days and has not been heard of since, is lazy.

Just one more point, It is rather difficult to make philisophical claims without mentioning psychology in some way as the two are very closely related. So even if I was mixing the two it still put across my point of finding it hard to believe in a being that we have no empirical evidence of.

Not sure there is a logical argument that if God exists, we would be able to understand God's nature. It seem man tries to understand a God, in human terms man can understand, and then propose this view of God is not valid. There may well be a very large cognitive distance between what God is and what we can understand.

What religious people refer to as 'GOD', I personally call LIFE. I believe it is also what scientists refer to as energy when they claim, "it can neither be created nor destroyed."

However, I thought to introduce a bit of chaos by stating:

If 'GOD' does not exist, why create HIM/HER/IT?

The reason for this is that recently while observing the social trends of our world, it became a concern that with time history will become more dim than fiction. So far history seems to fade away faster than fiction and the parts of history that seem fresh in the average person's mind are those incorporated into fiction. So I wondered, will there come a time when 'superman' is more real than 'Hitler'? Or worse, when 'Hitler' is just another bad-guy in the 'Superman' story?

Think about it, more of what people say about 'GOD' hinges on fiction. They say 'GOD is all-powerful' yet our everyday lives is a testament to the contrary with the many limitations and evils of society not only affecting the non-religious but also the religious.

I think if 'GOD' isn't fictitious, then HE/SHE/IT is more practical than those who claim such faith. And if 'GOD' acts according to our faith, then we should realize we are in the driving seat and sober up quick.

Bottom line is => Before 'GOD' there seems to be us.
We need to work on our lives instead of assigning the responsibility of our faults to some fictitious element of our own making.

I think if 'GOD' isn't fictitious — BrianW

I agree completely. However, I don't believe that God is a metaphore for life, but instead perhaps something that people can place faith in to cope with the dismay of life. However, you can see the contradiction here of why would God create this dismay just to get people to follow him. It takes away his benevolence and, therefore, doesn't make him God anymore.

Not sure there is a logical argument that if God exists, we would be able to understand God's nature. — Rank Amateur

I personally don't believe that there are arguments that are logical enough to prove the existence of God without entailing a problem. God apparently cannot do anything that is illogical but his existence is entirely illogical, therefore, he cannot exist.

...they don't agree with the fact that there could be a being out there that we are not able to sense — GreyScorpio

But all the major religions agree that we should not be able to sense God.

In other words, this objection is talking about something other than "the major religions' God". As a matter of fact, there is agreement between, for lack of a better term, "religionists" and "atheists" on that point: God is not the kind of being that we can sense. The divergence then is, what kind of being is God? Atheists reply, "an imaginary being". (Note that this is not the same thing as "nothing"). Religionists reply, "a transcendent being".

The locus of the disagreement is the notion of transcendence and its relationship with (a) imagination and (b) empirical being. Atheists claim that "transcendence" is a species of imagination, and therefore that it is bounded by the same constraints as imagination (in most atheists' worldview, this includes a human consciousness, dependent on a brain for existing, etc.). Religionists claim that transcendence is a subdivision of being-in-general; that, along with immanence (and perhaps other subdivisions, it varies a bit), it maps out being-in-general.

Which is why any investigation about God necessarily begins elsewhere, in an investigation about things and concepts and abstraction and the psyche. As Plato famously said (paraphrased), one must study geometry before metaphysics.

Unfortunately, most contemporary discussions about this take for granted too many shaky presuppositions that almost guarantee a misunderstanding. Witness the so-called "New Atheists" books.

As a matter of fact, there is agreement between, for lack of a better term, "religionists" and "atheists" on that point: God is not the kind of being that we can sense. The divergence then is, what kind of being is God? Atheists reply, "an imaginary being". (Note that this is not the same thing as "nothing"). Religionists reply, "a transcendent being". — Mariner

Interesting, I didn't think of it this way. However, if this were the definitive answer then there would be no argument as to whether God exists or not. Even so, atheists may think that God is an imaginary being but they still believe that Religious people are putting their dependence and faith into something that is not real, whether it be transcendent or not.

I think that atheists are entirely separated from the fact that there is a being that is not physical 'out there' even if God is transcendent, that still implies that his some type of being. Linguistically, the word being means existence or even the essence of a PERSON which would imply physicality also. So under any circumstances Christianity always refers back to God being physical, transcendent or not.

God is an imaginary being but they still believe that Religious people are putting their dependence and faith into something that is not real, whether it be transcendent or not. — GreyScorpio

That is precisely the issue. When A says that X is "not real, whether it be transcendent or not", he is presupposing a notion of "reality" that R disagrees with. "Transcendent yet not real" is an oxymoron in a R's worldview. If something is transcendent, then it is real, with a reality that is actually "more real" than the reality of everyday objects (observable through the senses).

"This does not make any sense", says A. However, the issue cannot be decided before the criteria of reality are settled between the disputants. What is real, in what form or shape is an imaginary being (to use A's worldview) "real"? After all, an imaginary being is not nothing, i.e., it is something.

These words -- reality, being, existence -- are very slippery. And the problem with A-R debates is that both sides presuppose that their worldview is "obvious" (a dangerous word) and refrain from doing the hard work of examining their worldview through philosophical reflection.

Christianity always refers back to God being physical, transcendent or not. — GreyScorpio

"Physical" is another slippery word. Christian dogma is adamant that:

a) God is not physical
b) Jesus was/is physical
c) Jesus is God

This can be dismissed as mere contradictory sentences, or studied as a meditative tool (akin to a Zen koan).

Could you please simply explain transcendence just for clarity?

but his existence is entirely illogical — GreyScorpio

completely disagree - theism is not illogical

The dictionary is a good first step. Merriam-Webster:

Definition of transcendent
1 a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent
4 : universally applicable or significant

We see a common theme: words being used to point at something beyond words. (Exceeding limits, beyond comprehension). But the common theme is, of course, empty if one does not presuppose that reality is already composed of "perceivables and non-perceivable", "comprehensibles and non-comprehensibles", "experienciables and non-experienciables", etc.

Dictionaries can help us from straying into fruitless discussions when we are not really speaking the same language, but they can't solve the problem itself, since this problem is about the limits of language (even though we may be speaking the same language all along).

A good way to address transcendence is Platonic philosophy. The Socratic discussions in the early dialogues, about "the nature of" virtue, piety, justice, etc. are attempts to bring "into language" the problem of being-beyond-ordinary-experience. They are also good in that they emphasize that the roots of this being are present within ordinary experience itself: Socrates is not a preacher, someone who brings revealed truth; he is the midwife that helps something "in seed" to burst into conscious being.

In the context of this thread, I pointed out some notions, way back at the beginning, that could be explored as exemplars of "being-beyond-ordinary-experience". The notion of britishness, of sevenness, were mentioned. What kind of being is britishness? Is it "merely imaginary"? Does it, er, transcend the people and the isles, or does it not? Etc.

completely disagree - theism is not illogical — Rank Amateur

I believe that God's existence is illogical. You would first need to consider where he comes from? How does he exist? This is the root of what God is, or it should be, and if we try and answer these questions, eventually we always lead to a logical contradiction which suggest that he doesn't exist. For example, St Anselm's attempt to prove that God must exist with the ontological argument. He says that God is the greatest concievable thing. Anything is better if it exists in our minds and in reality, if God only existed in our minds then he wouldn't be the greatest conceivable thing. So, using this, Anselm deduced that God must exist. However, the issue with this is that this could be used for literally anything you could think of being the greatest conceivable thing. Therefore, suggesting that God's qualities are nothing but imaginative powers which make his existence fictitious.

3 : transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent — Mariner

Thank you! So, I'm guessing that you are referring to the definition that I have quoted? If so then I'm also guessing that 'transcending the universe or material existence' also means that he is beyond material comprehension?

If so then I'm also guessing that 'transcending the universe or material existence' also means that he is beyond material comprehension? — GreyScorpio

What does "material comprehension" mean? I am not familiar with that expression.