On natural phenomena

[Diagoras]

Inspired by this quote in the ‘Questions about the earth’ topic, posted in the Science and Religion forum by brunumb:

No phenomena previously attributed to a god has been resolved in favour of a god rather than natural phenomena.

I’m interested in debating this, as I consider the claim as it stands to be truthful. In support of the claim, however, I would like to stress the significance of the word ‘resolved’ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as ‘to come to a determination; to make up one's mind’, but I think it makes the statement clearer if ‘resolved’ is taken as meaning ‘to establish the truth’ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).

Therefore, the scope of this debate topic must necessarily exclude unresolved natural phenomena, i.e. ‘things for which there is currently no single, accepted scientific explanation’. An obvious example would be the beginning of the universe: something which science would accept as being currently ‘unresolved’ (although not necessarily unresolvable in the future). On the other hand, the theory of plate tectonics is a ‘single, accepted scientific explanation’ of why we see similar fossil strata on separate coastlines, and find seashells on mountain tops.


So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

“No observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.�

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 20 by Divine Insight]

DI and Tcg, I am interested in discussions, and not just with people heavily looking to believe in God, but I'm not looking for discussions which would take months and the people are just talking past each other. I do think a person ought to want to believe in a personal God since who in their right mind wouldn't want to be with their deceased family member or friend again. Who wouldn't want there to be a heaven where all the evils in this life are resolved in a good way. If you don't want that, then chances are good that atheism is really, really important to you for some deep personal reason. In such a case it probably wouldn't be a fruitful discussion. That's not to say a fruitful discussion is not possible otherwise, but I have found it to be a useful criterion in open-minded and reasonable discussions. I think if an atheist wants their to be a god, then they might be willing to throw out the cavils and focus on charitable interpretations and its not a waste of time having such a discussion.

Are there no atheists here that wouldn't in a second click their heals three times for there to be a compassionate supreme being?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 21 by harvey1]

Why do you ignore everything DI writes about his personal reasons for doubting your claims that a god exists?

He has, on multiple occasions, directly to you, in opposition to your claims, pointed out that his reason for not believing in a god isn't because "atheism is really, really important to [him] for some deep personal reason." He has stated, quite unambiguously, that it's because there is no evidence that any gods exist.

How you could distort his position so drastically, and gaslight him to such an incredible degree, without any hesitation is baffling. Stop that.

[Divine Insight]

DI and Tcg, I am interested in discussions, and not just with people heavily looking to believe in God, but I'm not looking for discussions which would take months and the people are just talking past each other.

Excuse me Harvey but YOU are the one who is taking past people.

I do think a person ought to want to believe in a personal God since who in their right mind wouldn't want to be with their deceased family member or friend again. Who wouldn't want there to be a heaven where all the evils in this life are resolved in a good way. If you don't want that, then chances are good that atheism is really, really important to you for some deep personal reason.

And who on this forum suggested that they wouldn't WANT these things?

You are creating imaginary debate opponents in your mind that don't even exist, and then attempting to accuse us of being those imagined people you have created in your own mind.

Why not address what we actually say instead of talking PAST us?

In such a case it probably wouldn't be a fruitful discussion.

So that's not even the case here so why invent a case that doesn't exist?

That's not to say a fruitful discussion is not possible otherwise, but I have found it to be a useful criterion in open-minded and reasonable discussions. I think if an atheist wants their to be a god, then they might be willing to throw out the cavils and focus on charitable interpretations and its not a waste of time having such a discussion.

Are there no atheists here that wouldn't in a second click their heals three times for there to be a compassionate supreme being?

Of course there are plenty of atheists who would love to believe in a fairy Godmother who will magically come and take them away to a wonderful paradise free from all misery and suffering. Who wouldn't want that?

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that your arguments for the existence of such a magical fairy Godmother simply aren't credible.

Apparently you are so used to just believing anything you WANT to believe that you have convinced yourself that this is the only criteria required to search for truth. As long as you WANT it bad enough it must be true, right?

Apparently that's the crux of your entire argument.

In the meantime you accuse us of not wanting these things.

Who wouldn't want a magical fairy to come and take them away to a magical land free from all suffering, pain and hardships?

That's no argument for the existence of a God, or the credibility of any theology.

So if that's your argument, and it certainly appears to be your argument, then you don't have a meaningful argument.

Wanting something does not constitute evidence, or even good reasons, to believe that it exists.

[harvey1]

[Replying to Neatras]

Like I said those propositions are deeply flawed but it would take months to go through the arguments (assuming there would be extensive number of cavils) to make any progress at all.

[harvey1]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

DI, how do you square wanting God to exist with?:

So unless you can actually produce the God so I can ask the God questions, just convincing me that a God exists wouldn't change a doggone thing.

A God I can't get answers from is about as useless as a pit bull with rabies.

It sounded like you really have no desire for God to exist. Are you saying that you really would like God to exist (of course assuming he's good, compassionate, etc.)?

[Divine Insight]

It sounded like you really have no desire for God to exist. Are you saying that you really would like God to exist (of course assuming he's good, compassionate, etc.)?

Of course I would like for a good compassionate God to exist.

You asked me how this would "better" my life if a God did exist. My answer is that it wouldn't change my life.

I would have no reason to change my character or behavior if a good compassionate God exists because I'm already a good and compassionate person. So there's no reason to think that a good compassionate God would have any problem with me just as I am.

So in that context it's not going to make any difference in my current life whether a good compassionate God exists or not.

The second point would be the question of death versus having everlasting life. But once again, the difference there isn't going to change my current life.

It doesn't matter whether I cease to exist when I die, or whether I am whisked away to a fairly land paradise when I die. Both of those events would occur AFTER this life is over. So which one is true isn't going to change this life. This life is still going to be what it currently is.

So even if I knew that a magical fairy Godmother existed it wouldn't change my current life at all.

I'm not depressed. I don't fear death. And I'm not looking for a magical being to solve all my problems.

As you have suggested, perhaps if I was in an extremely dire situation where I was in grave suffering and desperate for magical fairy to remove me from that situation I might be more inclined to want to desperately believe that such a magical being exists.

But the question is then this: If I was in such a desperate situation would a magical fairy come and pull me out of the misery? Based on what we know even that's not going to happen. So believing that a magical being would come and save us doesn't appear to be enough to make it come true.

Unless of course, I am the one who is creating my own misery, then perhaps I could change my ways to relieve the pain I am inflicting upon myself. The problem is, that works in a secular world as well and doesn't require any magical fairies.

So I don't see what argument you are trying to make for the existence of a magical being?

Whether I want to believe in one or not doesn't appear to loan any credence to whether or not one might exist.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 25 by harvey1]

By the way, if you would personally change who you and how you behave based on whether or not you believe in a God then perhaps believing in a God is a good idea for you because that would then help you behave better even if the God you believe in doesn't exist. Just believing that it exists would cause you to behave in a better way.

But that situation doesn't apply to me. I don't base who I am or how I behave on whether or not there exists a God or whether or not I'll cease to exist when I die.

I have no desire to do nasty or harmful things so by just being who I am just happens to coincidentally turn out to be how a person should behave if a good compassionate God was keeping tabs on their behavior.

I'm fully aware that this is not the case for everyone.

There are people out there who would no doubt behave far better if they believed some good compassionate God was keeping tabs on their behavior.

In fact, sadly, there are many people out there who actually believe that a God exists and still do nasty and harmful things anyway. Our prisons are filled with god-believing criminals in case you haven't noticed.

[harvey1]

[quote="Divine Insight"]
But just think about people who lose a loved one that meant more than life itself. What you're saying is pretty empty for them. "Cheer up you can always remember them." "Have another kid." Etc. That just doesn't cut it. Atheism sucks. Let's not forget that.

Of course, the fact that atheism sucks doesn't make it false. But, I think the only response matters is that we should give anything for theism to be true. We can't give up truth, but we should realize that a theist world is far more meaningful. We might be okay personally for right now (if we're lucky), but we're billions times better off if atheists are wrong.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by harvey1]

But just think about people who lose a loved one that meant more than life itself. What you're saying is pretty empty for them.

This sounds as if you think theism should be considered valid simply to provide hope that there is an afterlife so that lost loved ones might be experienced again. But there is zero evidence or reason to believe that humans do have afterlives, no matter how nice this would be. The reality of that seems to me to be a better way to approach life than to hold to some fantasy that humans are special creatures and can exist after they have physically died. What does that baseless hope provide when there is no evidence that is it true?

Atheism sucks. Let's not forget that.

No it doesn't. It is simply the lack of belief in gods. If one of these beings popped out of the sky and made itself known in some concrete, verifiable way I don't know of anyone who wouldn't then believe it exists. But through all the millennia and the thousands of gods that humans have invented, not a single one of them has been demonstrated to actually exist. They are purely imaginary (so far), as are ideas spawned from belief in them such as humans having afterlives.

We might be okay personally for right now (if we're lucky), but we're billions times better off if atheists are wrong.

Why? Atheists simply don't believe that gods exist, and for some (like myself) it is because they have never been demonstrated to exist, and they are not needed to explain nature or anything else. Hoping that they exist and that humans are special and can have afterlives is just that ... hope. As has been pointed out by DI and others, of course this would be a fantastic scenario if it were true, but there is just no evidence that it is anything more than wishful thinking. How is clinging to such hope billions of times better than accepting what appears to be reailty in that humans are no different from any other animal (in regards to afterlife, assuming you believe that only humans have this special opportunity) and when our physical bodies expire that is the end of our existence in the universe? I'm perfectly happy to accept this as reality and try to make the most of the brief period I have to exist as a living creature, without any imaginary afterlife dreams.

[Divine Insight]

But just think about people who lose a loved one that meant more than life itself. What you're saying is pretty empty for them. "Cheer up you can always remember them." "Have another kid." Etc. That just doesn't cut it. Atheism sucks. Let's not forget that.

There are a lot of things about reality that suck. That's not sufficient reason to not believe they are true.

Of course, the fact that atheism sucks doesn't make it false.

Atheism is neither true nor false. Atheism is simply a rejection of theologies that are indeed clearly false.

But, I think the only response matters is that we should give anything for theism to be true. We can't give up truth, but we should realize that a theist world is far more meaningful. We might be okay personally for right now (if we're lucky), but we're billions times better off if atheists are wrong.

Which theism?

IMHO, Christianity and all of the Abrahamic theologies suck far worse than a secular existence.

What good is thinking that your loved one might still be alive if they might be burning in hell?

And if you think they went to heaven, and that you'll eventually be joining them, isn't that a rather arrogant presumption?