Is "god" LIKELY to exist?

[Zzyzx]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

[bernee51]

... namely its contingent nature, and then attempts to draw a reasonable inference as to its existence.

Unsupported claim

Please show that the universe is contingent.

And Im not clear what you mean by concept of gods.

God is a mental constuct...a concept.

If something has the appearance of having begun to exist, then the common sense reaction, it seems to me, is to believe it actually did begin to exist.

You can believe what you like, you can hold it to be 'common sense'...that does not make it fact.

If the tree in front of me has the appearance of being green and leafy, then, assuming my cognitive faculties are working properly, I am well within my intellectual rights to believe that there actually is a tree that exists which is in fact green leafy.

And if I stand on the Nullabor Plain, which is flat as a pancake in all directions, amy 'intelellectual rights' to believe tyhe earth is flat?

A 'green tree' is nothing more than an arrangement of atoms and molecules arranged with sufficient complexity to have biological activity. It is only 'green tree' because that is the concept that has been attributed to it by sentient beings.

The universe is in the same boat. Numerous scientists in different observatories and universities have determined that the universe actually came into existence.

I would suggest that a;; would, when pressed, agree that the data as currently understood would suggest a beginning to the universe as we currently observe it.

This points to a change in state.

Is there any reason to dismiss the possibility that the universe, in some shape or form, has always existed and will always exist?

Yes there is. The universe is a contingent being.

So you keep claiming. You have not demostratd that this is the case. My understanding of 'contingent" is: dependent for existence, occurrence, character, etc., on something not yet certain.

A contingent thing cannot have always existed.

You are talking of the universe as it is now observed. That from which the universe emerged, has not been observed.

God, on the other hand, as a necessary being, suffers from no such handicap.

Special plead.

These support BELIEF in god, not the existence of god.

One doesnt need an argument to BELIEVE in god. Someone could believe for any dumb reason. But the arguments do provide good (as opposed to dumb) reasons for believing in the existence of god. The arguments are not coercive, certainly, but surely still strong and hopefully persuasive.

They all support a validation of the concept of god. Man has constructed both god and the arguments to support its existence.

Using your logic, no argument for anything is useful for showing that anything exists, merely that it supports ones belief in that thing.

Unless there is verifiable evidence in support - that is all it can do.

The concept of gravity exists logically is supported by evidence. The concept of a god exists logically but is not supported by evidence.

If the universe actually began to exist, then pantheism is rendered implausible. In Pantheism the universe is eternal. This has shown to be false.

We can only limit ourselves to the universe as we observe it to exist. It has the appearance of having begun to emerge into its present form, and continues to emerge.

Im not assuming what needs to be proved. I already provided some evidence that the universe is finite.

Must have missed it.

I then draw a reasonable conclusion that since the universe is not eternal, any religious view that sees the universe as eternal is highly unlikely.
The argument can be forumulated:
1)If pantheism is true, then the universe is eternal
2) The universe is not eternal.
3)Therefore, pantheism is false.

McC has argues elswhere that the universe is indeed 'eternal'. I'l leave that for him to folllow up

This is built on an assumption that is not validated.

For as start " can you prove that time exists?

Time doesnt exist?

That is not what i said. I asked if you could prove that time exists?

Do you really believe that? Time is a common, ever present feature of reality. The burden of proof surely falls on the non-believer of times existence to show that it doesnt exist.

Time is how sentient creatures measure the distance between instances of 'now'. How long is 'now'? Has 'now' not always existed? Can you give me an instance when 'now' has never existed?

Time, like god, is a concept, a human construct.

Concepts of god are all you have shown to be possible.

Got anything on the extant reality of any god?

See above.

Must have missed it.

[Jester]

G'day Jester.

Greetings!

Would this be the god 'Amen' ?

I've never understood any verse in the Bible to be referring to the word "Amen" as God's name.
Nor am I terribly concerned with which name we choose to use.

Also known as Amon, Ammon, Amun and Amen. Egyptian god known as "King of the Gods" and "Lord of Heaven"

Other than having a name which sounds similar to a word used in the Bible, and two titles which are used of several deities which are otherwise unconnected, are there any more significant similarities?
I assume that you intend to make the case that YHVH of the Christian Bible is simply a revised version of Ammon (let me know if that is not the case). Thus far, I don't see anything here that looks more than purely coincidental, but would be interested in hearing any other reasons you have for taking this position.

[Jester]

I base my view on the arguments presented by John Allen Paulos, professor of mathematics at Temple University in Philadelphia in Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up. Upon what do you base your assessment of the probability of there being a god?

Oh, a great many things.
I can't really point to one book that encompasses all I think (not even *gasp* the Bible), but the influence of Descartes should be pretty clear in my argument here.

Assuming a God does exist, I'd say that the Christian God seems the most likely so far.

Why would you say that? Is the Christian concept of God more likely than the Islamic or the Sikh?

Skipping this for now - I'll speak on the general issue below.

The concept of a loving creator is, so far as I know, the world-view that accounts for the reality of human life (including such things as the physical universe, ethics, and purpose in life) with the fewest axioms (one), meaning that it strikes me as a more elegant explanation than those requiring multiple axioms.

And Christianity is the only religion with the concept of a loving God?

Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I thought, as I was responding to Zzyzx, I'd start there, however. The idea of tackling the whole lexicon of gods in history, as opposed to starting with a more general concept of God for this debate, seemed daunting (to say the least).
I answered the question because Zzyzx asked, but I tried to make clear in my response that I wasn't actually interested in discussing that matter, but rather in comparing theism to atheism (apologies if that didn't come across).

That alone seems a big enough argument that I'm inclined to avoid discussing the reasons why I select the particular creator that I do. My only insistence on this latter topic at the moment is that the number of possible gods suggested by theists is not a point in favor of non-theism (as some have claimed in other threads).

I disagree. If there was the same level of disagreement over the attributes and identity of marsupials, I would say that would be an argument against their existence.

That wouldn't be an argument in favor of the non-existence of any particular animal. It may, of course, be an excellent argument against the effectiveness of the use of the categorical term of "marsupial", but this isn't really what any of us are driving at.
To draw a similar analogy, the fact that scientists have as of yet been unable to give a satisfactory definition for the term "energy" is not a convincing argument that energy does not exist.
Nor is debate between the particular understandings of a given theory an argument in favor of opponents of said theory unless the arguments can themselves show clear problems with the theory (in which case, the argument itself is still irrelevant).

[Flail]

The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

I was talking about the cosmological argument, not the ontological argument.

...as was I, sorry for the confusion.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Jester.

G'day Jester.

Greetings!

Would this be the god 'Amen' ?

I've never understood any verse in the Bible to be referring to the word "Amen" as God's name.
Nor am I terribly concerned with which name we choose to use.

Not even this passage ? ...

Revelation 3:14

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Also known as Amon, Ammon, Amun and Amen. Egyptian god known as "King of the Gods" and "Lord of Heaven"

Other than having a name which sounds similar to a word used in the Bible, and two titles which are used of several deities which are otherwise unconnected, are there any more significant similarities?
I assume that you intend to make the case that YHVH of the Christian Bible is simply a revised version of Ammon (let me know if that is not the case). Thus far, I don't see anything here that looks more than purely coincidental, but would be interested in hearing any other reasons you have for taking this position.

Actually, there is more, though I offered this more in the lines of enquiring from you about the christian 'God', as I noticed that you have made it clear that before you provide evidence that you require a counter argument.

Are you able to verify who the christian 'God' is ?

Is it possible that it might be other than who you think it is ?

If not, why not ?

Another counter argument that could be presented is the case for 'Jesus' being 'Lucifer'. For instance ...

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer


Revelation 22:16 (KJV) "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Revelation 22:16 (NIV) "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

2 Peter 1:19 (New International Version) "19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

With various possibilities, how are we to pick one and not another ?

How do you, as you have stated, "Assuming a God does exist, I'd say that the Christian God seems the most likely so far", come to your conclusion about "the Christian God" ?

Is there some verifiable way that you could instruct others with to be able to know whether or not "the Christian God seems the most likely" to be The 'God' ?

[LiamOS]

But where did the molecules come from in the first place? Are they eternal? Surely a common sense questioner would ask the first question,no? and isn't that the point of the Cosmological argument?

Regardless of their origin, it is an example of an event which is uncaused, as is the decay of a neutron.

[ksed]

... namely its contingent nature, and then attempts to draw a reasonable inference as to its existence.

Unsupported claim

Please show that the universe is contingent.

I said that you can conduct a mind experiment and imagine every piece in the universe disappearing. Would the universe still exist if that happened? It doesn't seem so. So it seems likely that the universe is contingent.

God is a mental constuct...a concept.

Unsupported claim. Please show that god is a mental construct.

If something has the appearance of having begun to exist, then the common sense reaction, it seems to me, is to believe it actually did begin to exist.

You can believe what you like, you can hold it to be 'common sense'...that does not make it fact.

I do believe it. So do many others, especially the scientists who study the cosmos. That in and of itself of course doesn't make it true but it is surely more plausible than the alternative.

If the tree in front of me has the appearance of being green and leafy, then, assuming my cognitive faculties are working properly, I am well within my intellectual rights to believe that there actually is a tree that exists which is in fact green leafy.

And if I stand on the Nullabor Plain, which is flat as a pancake in all directions, amy 'intelellectual rights' to believe tyhe earth is flat?

Yes, given the limitations of your perspective. But once you gain more information or a better perspective, your belief will change. The belief that the earth is flat is a mistake of the senses (due to limited perspective and information). The beginning of the universe, in addition to the scientific evidence, can be subject to philosophical reflection and analysis - namely, one can think about whether or not an entity that began to exist had a cause for its existence. One can also reflect on what the explanation of an entity is, etc.

A 'green tree' is nothing more than an arrangement of atoms and molecules arranged with sufficient complexity to have biological activity. It is only 'green tree' because that is the concept that has been attributed to it by sentient beings.

Yes, I agree. But it still exists right? And you can still see it right?. So if you see it and it actually exists, and if you verify its existence as I mentioned before, it is reasonable to believe it's right in front of you. Same thing with the universe. If the scientific evidence points to its beginning, then I'm rational to believe that it did begin and thus required a cause.

God, on the other hand, as a necessary being, suffers from no such handicap.

Special plead.

And you are specially pleading ( if that's a proper phrase) for the universe by saying that it has always existed.

They all support a validation of the concept of god. Man has constructed both god and the arguments to support its existence.

I'm afraid this looks like an unsupported claim. If you had just said man had constructed the arguments, then I'd agree with that.







For as start " can you prove that time exists?

Time doesnt exist? [/quote]

That is not what i said. I asked if you could prove that time exists?

My apologies. All I can say that our common experience includes and perhaps even requires that time exist.

Do you really believe that? Time is a common, ever present feature of reality. The burden of proof surely falls on the non-believer of times existence to show that it doesnt exist.

Time is how sentient creatures measure the distance between instances of 'now'. How long is 'now'? Has 'now' not always existed? Can you give me an instance when 'now' has never existed?

Time, like god, is a concept, a human construct.

Well, I guess all I can say is that Hawking, Ellis, and Penrose discovered that time had a beginning.

Concepts of god are all you have shown to be possible.

Got anything on the extant reality of any god?

See above.

Must have missed it

.

Haha! Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Jester]

I've never understood any verse in the Bible to be referring to the word "Amen" as God's name.
Nor am I terribly concerned with which name we choose to use.

Not even this passage ? ...

Revelation 3:14

Perhaps the difference between a name and a title are not significant to you, but I don't feel that it is at all surprising that one of the many the titles by which YHWH and Jesus are known by in the Bible sound like names of other Gods.
One interesting about this particular title is that it comes in one of the latest writings - long after the idea of a Biblical God has been established. It does not seem to stand to reason that a thousand years or so would pass before the initial influence would suddenly show up in Christian writing.

Thus far, I don't see anything here that looks more than purely coincidental, but would be interested in hearing any other reasons you have for taking this position.

Actually, there is more, though I offered this more in the lines of enquiring from you about the christian 'God', as I noticed that you have made it clear that before you provide evidence that you require a counter argument.

That's not quite what I claimed, but, very well, my counter claim is that the similarities are coincidental (or based in common cause), and that no causal connection can be shown here.
Feel free to provide any more that you feel is persuasive in support of your position.

Are you able to verify who the christian 'God' is?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'verify'. Do you mean prove absolutely?
If so, no.
If not, what is meant?

Is it possible that it might be other than who you think it is ?

I'd say that it is entirely possible in the sense that none of us can possibly conceive of God exactly as he is.
More to the core of your question, I don't yet see any reason to accept the idea that the Christian God is a rehashed version of Ammon. What has been presented thus far, I think, is much better described as perfectly plausible coincidences.

Another counter argument that could be presented is the case for 'Jesus' being 'Lucifer'. For instance ...

We can discuss this if you'd like, but I don't see that this remotely supports the claim that Jesus is Ammon.

As to that separate argument:

Lucifer is a Latin word meaning "light-bearer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), a Roman astrological term for the "Morning Star", the planet Venus.

Yes, there are similarities that can be drawn between the names. I don't think that makes them the same name, however, nor does the same name imply the same being (i.e. the fallacy of: "My name is John, your name is john, therefore we are the same person.").
It seems to me to be rather far-fetched to suggest that the Bible is claiming that Jesus and Satan are the same person. If you wish to support that idea, I'm happy to entertain the idea, but don't feel that much will be found there.

How do you, as you have stated, "Assuming a God does exist, I'd say that the Christian God seems the most likely so far", come to your conclusion about "the Christian God" ?

I had thought that I communicated this, but, as is becoming clear, I didn't do well to that end. So, to clarify:
I answered that question because Zzyzx specifically invited me to this topic and asked it. I, however, am not interested in discussing the whole lexicon of proposed gods in human history.
Anyone who wishes to propose and defend a specific concept (such as you have done with Ammon - or defending one understanding of the Jewish religion), I am happy to discuss. I'm don't, however, see the point in running through thousands of options in response to one question.

[Jester]

Hi Jester. Thank you for the reply.

Greetings!
Sorry I didn't get back to you (completely missed this).

In my opinion, you properly characterized a Theistic position.

Notice that all you presented was OPINION about what is "most likely".

I did state more in the way of opinions than I intend to argue in debate, yes.
I don't know that it is either true to claim that this is more true of theists than non-theists myself. I've seen a great deal from both sides.

Skipping a bit. If I don't cover all the basic points, let me know what you'd like addressed.

Unless all competing "gods" are given thorough consideration, HOW can one make that statement?

I have no objection to considering as many gods as possible. I only take issue with
1. discussing all of them here, and
2. the idea that there is any support of non-theism to be found in this line of thought.

Another skip.

The concept of a loving creator is, so far as I know, the world-view that accounts for the reality of human life (including such things as the physical universe, ethics, and purpose in life) with the fewest axioms (one), meaning that it strikes me as a more elegant explanation than those requiring multiple axioms.

Among the thousands of proposed "gods", many are depicted as very different from "a loving creator".

It may be appealing to think of one's favorite "god" as a "loving creator"; however, doing so is simply a personal preference " which certainly cannot be considered a rational basis for evaluating the existence of a "god" (as the question asks).

These thoughts are valid concerns for other points, agreed, but doesn't address my comment here.
In the paragraph above, I am not arguing that the Christian God, or any other, is a loving creator. I am instead arguing that a loving creator reduces the number of required axioms.

That alone seems a big enough argument that I'm inclined to avoid discussing the reasons why I select the particular creator that I do. My only insistence on this latter topic at the moment is that the number of possible gods suggested by theists is not a point in favor of non-theism (as some have claimed in other threads).

The number of proposed "gods" does not favor theism or non-theism, in my opinion " but certainly complicates the matter of deciding which (if any) is "likely" or "most likely" to exist.

It makes it a difficult matter, agreed.

People apparently "pick a god" based largely upon their culture, family, and associates " then declare their choice to be "most likely" without further investigation or evidence and without careful and thorough consideration of the alternative choices available.

We all could stand to look more into the matter, but I don't yet see a reason to believe that theists are any more presumptive on this topic than non-theists are.
Admittedly, I'm not sure that this is what you are arguing, but, if it is not, I'm not sure how it is relevant to the topic.

It appears to me as though the question of "most likely to exist" is answered with "I think so" and nothing else.

My central argument (reducing axioms) has apparently gone unnoticed (most likely due to my own lack of emphasizing it - apologies).

[bernee51]

... namely its contingent nature, and then attempts to draw a reasonable inference as to its existence.

Unsupported claim

Please show that the universe is contingent.

I said that you can conduct a mind experiment and imagine every piece in the universe disappearing. Would the universe still exist if that happened? It doesn't seem so. So it seems likely that the universe is contingent.

Yes I noted that and ignored it...which is what I tend to do with straw men.

Things do not disappear " they change in form.

The contingency argument hinges on what it means for something to fail to exist. In the physical world, it's change that brings this about. But a physical object never vanishes into thin air, as it is transformed into something else. If we look at the universe as a whole, any given state will fail to exist, but only by transforming into a new state. So with the premise that an object failing to exist leaves another in its place, the argument that the physical universe should not exist no longer follows. So it is logically consistent to claim the physical world is an endless chain of events, given that nothing ever vanishes by itself.

[

God is a mental constuct...a concept.

Unsupported claim. Please show that god is a mental construct.

The very fact that you are talking about its existence and attributing attributes demonstrates that it is a mental construct...a concept you wish to prove to be an extant reality.

Unfortunately is ultimately self contradictory. In order to define, god in this case, you must set boundaries. An entity with boundaries is limited.

If something has the appearance of having begun to exist, then the common sense reaction, it seems to me, is to believe it actually did begin to exist.

You can believe what you like, you can hold it to be 'common sense'...that does not make it fact.

I do believe it. So do many others, especially the scientists who study the cosmos. That in and of itself of course doesn't make it true but it is surely more plausible than the alternative.

I do not doubt that the universe as we perceive it has the appearance of having begun to exist " that is what the available evidence points towards.

That does not speak to that from which the universe may, or may not, have emerged.

Yes, given the limitations of your perspective. But once you gain more information or a better perspective, your belief will change.

Indeed " gods once caused lightning " until shown otherwise. God has got smaller as our perception grew.

The incredible shrinking god is no god.

The beginning of the universe, in addition to the scientific evidence, can be subject to philosophical reflection and analysis - namely, one can think about whether or not an entity that began to exist had a cause for its existence. One can also reflect on what the explanation of an entity is, etc.

One can reflect on all sorts of things. The reflection does not necessarily reflect reality. My reflection of the possibility that the universe, based on the observation of the infinite now, has, in some shape or form, always existed and will always exist is a valid reflection.

A 'green tree' is nothing more than an arrangement of atoms and molecules arranged with sufficient complexity to have biological activity. It is only 'green tree' because that is the concept that has been attributed to it by sentient beings.

Yes, I agree. But it still exists right?

That depends on what is meant by exist, what is meant by reality what is meant by tree.

an advaita philosopher stated......only that is real which cannot cease to exist nor change in any way...

That said, we see an arrangement of atoms and molecules and call it tree.

The atoms and molecules and biological aspects of 'tree' exist as part of the physiosphere/biosphere, the concept tree exists only in the noosphere.

If the scientific evidence points to its beginning, then I'm rational to believe that it did begin and thus required a cause.

Non-sequitor.

God, on the other hand, as a necessary being, suffers from no such handicap.

Special plead.

And you are specially pleading ( if that's a proper phrase) for the universe by saying that it has always existed.

Not at all " read what I have written - I made no such claim.

They all support a validation of the concept of god. Man has constructed both god and the arguments to support its existence.

I'm afraid this looks like an unsupported claim. If you had just said man had constructed the arguments, then I'd agree with that.

There was no knowledge of god until man created the concept. For all intents and purposes god did not exist before man came on the scent.

The concept of god arose when mankind evolved the ability to ask Who am I?

Time doesnt exist?

That is not what i said. I asked if you could prove that time exists?

My apologies. All I can say that our common experience includes and perhaps even requires that time exist. [/quote]

And common experience once held the earth was flat and malaria was caused by bad air

Do you really believe that? Time is a common, ever present feature of reality. The burden of proof surely falls on the non-believer of times existence to show that it doesnt exist.

Time is how sentient creatures measure the distance between instances of 'now'. How long is 'now'? Has 'now' not always existed? Can you give me an instance when 'now' has never existed?

Time, like god, is a concept, a human construct.

Well, I guess all I can say is that Hawking, Ellis, and Penrose discovered that time had a beginning.

The point from which concept we know time is measured appears to be the beginning

How long is a now?

Concepts of god are all you have shown to be possible.

Got anything on the extant reality of any god?

See above.

Must have missed it

.

Haha! Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

All I have ever seen is evidence in support of belief that the concept of god reflects an extant reality.

I suspect all that can ever be presented is exactly that.

There is no need or reason for, nor evidence of, the existence of any god.