Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[Alan]

[Abs quote] ... All that has been provided is a method by which we may believe at the expense of finding the truth.[/quote]

Additional comment here - NO, the "method" (seek and ye shall find) is a means of discovering the truth to YOUR own satisfaction, not blind belief. Again, such proofs are a matter of personal experience. To some, such "truths" are self-evident. To others, like it or not, the reality of God is not so evident. God is such that He is not anyone's wish fairy. Why should I be obligated to provide evidence acceptable in your own opinion? And if so inclined not to do so, whether able or not, indeed, why should God be obligated to prove Himself? In any case, answer me this - doesn't it seem far more reasonable that you demand proof from God, then, and NOT me, as I am only a dumb human... and should you fail to be satisfied with the results, why then burden ME with your complaint when so many others bear witness otherwise?

[Abs like J']

From Alan:

It is NOT possible nor relevant to provide evidence about the existence of God.

I agree with the first part, though I would expand it to include any concept of god(s) and similar imaginations of the supernatural. I disagree to an extent to the relevance, as people like myself aren't going to believe something without sufficient reason... reason such as evidence in support of such a belief. For the true believer who works through faith, however, I would agree that the impossibility of providing such evidence is irrelevant.

[Abs quote] ... All that has been provided is a method by which we may believe at the expense of finding the truth.

Additional comment here - NO, the "method" (seek and ye shall find) is a means of discovering the truth to YOUR own satisfaction, not blind belief.

The method to which I referred to was your proposal of suspending disbelief and scientific examination to ask a hypothetical deity for subjective evidence and supplant belief for truth. Such is not a method for discovering truth to my satisfaction.

Why should I be obligated to provide evidence acceptable in your own opinion? And if so inclined not to do so, whether able or not, indeed, why should God be obligated to prove Himself? In any case, answer me this - doesn't it seem far more reasonable that you demand proof from God, then, and NOT me, as I am only a dumb human... and should you fail to be satisfied with the results, why then burden ME with your complaint when so many others bear witness otherwise?

You're not obligated to provide evidence; you have the choice as to whether or not you participate in this particular thread or whether you wish to answer anybody who asks evidence of your particular beliefs. There is no obligation of sorts for you or a hypothetical existence to provide evidence... but there are those of us who will not adopt beliefs without sufficient reason to do so, and for us reason includes evidence.

From where I'm sitting, without any reason to believe in such a hypothetical being, it wouldn't be at all more reasonable to ask a hypothetical being for evidence. And as I intimated before in regards to obligation, you need not burden yourself at all with this matter.

[otseng]

Assuming any supernatural explanation as the cause of an unknown event is only justified if we were to conclude that a natural explanation of it would never be found. Considering the progression of science from one generation to the next and our inability to foresee the future, we can't be justified in believing no natural explanation will ever be found.

Sure, a naturalistic explanation of the origin of the BB may be found in the future. But right now, there hasn't been any offered. I have posed the question of how the BB got started and I have provided one theory to answer it. Let's boil it down this way. As one question, and a list of theories to answer it.

How did the Big Bang get started?
1. A creator/god started it.

When someone can provide more theories to answer the question, then answer number 1 is all we've got.

People have the right to simply reject answer 1, but from a logical point of view, it's the only available answer to choose from.

Furthermore, it cannot be logically argued that someone can believe in answer number 2 cause it simply has not been found yet. Until answer number 2 is actually provided, there is no option except answer 1 to the question.

[Abs like J']

How did the Big Bang get started?
1. A creator/god started it.

...People have the right to simply reject answer 1, but from a logical point of view, it's the only available answer to choose from.

...it cannot be logically argued that someone can believe in answer number 2 cause it simply has not been found yet. Until answer number 2 is actually provided, there is no option except answer 1 to the question.

This is not the only available answer to choose from and considering the absence of evidence for the posited answer and the seeming inability to ever test the posited answer, it is not really an answer at all.

By eschewing the scientific method of discovery in favor of theological assumptions, the supposition of a creator would be equal to the supposition of multiple creators or any other conceived catalyst be it conscious or not. So long as an answer could be assumed without evidenciary support or application of the scientific method, all assumptions would be valid leading us to an intellectual dead end in trying to understand the world we live in.

Conventional Big Bang views the four fundamental forces of nature being unified prior to the bang and being the cause of the explosion. It does not suppose a creator/god as being responsible for either the bang or the expansion.

There are still problems with the conventional view of the Big Bang due to the workings of quantum mechanics at the point of singularity. Delving deeper we find other theories utilizing string theory that suggest that there was something prior to the Big Bang (Ekpyrotic scenario for example). These don't dispute that the bang took place, but rather than propose a moment of infinite density they suggest a universe predating the bang -- ultimately an infinite universe.

In suggesting a universe prior to the Big Bang, as well as reasons for the Big Bang, these theories provide us with alternative answers that are scientific in nature, rather than untestable assumptions. By relying on science and our understanding of nature, these theories avoid unnecessary assumptions and provide a way in which to be tested and verified.

Whether ignoring quantum mechanics to view the singularity as a point unifying the four fundamental forces of nature or recognizing the role quantum mechanics play in understanding the Big Bang, assuming a supernatural catalyst is neither the only possible answer or the most reasonable.

[Alan]

[quote="Abs like J'"I agree... expand it to include any concept of god(s) and similar imaginations of the supernatural. I disagree to an extent to the relevance, as people like myself aren't going to believe something without sufficient reason... reason such as evidence in support of such a belief. All that has been provided is a method by which we may believe at the expense of finding the truth.[/quote]

This question of "proof" is so age old and worn out that I ought not to bother - we'll surely end up going in circles. I'll take the bait for a while, tho. I guess by reason of some familiar faith in evidence like stats (not body counts in Viet Nam, tho), you "believe" (admit) a billion or more Chinese actually exist. My question, then, (fumbling for good examples) you have no evidence at all that there was a bag of money under my neighbor's gargabe can. You have NO evidence that there is a $20 bill in my wallet. You have NO evidence that the significance of a randomized block is owed to covariance among all combinations of treatments. These things are all true, but people yet use this funny logic that because they don't have evidence (acceptable to their standard of such) that some thing really does NOT exist. That kind of puts a person in a self created black hole. Reality bites here. 99.999999% of everything that exists in the universe is absolutely unknown to anyone, or at least it was 100 years ago prior to better telescopes, but now like then most believe only in what "science" permits us to see, even though the scientific revolution was inspired by the funny "belief" that more was out there, including God in the minds of most. Belief that the physical universe is all that there could be is similarly flawed. It is all that we CAN see with our limited eyes... The only imagination at work here is that existence depends on your ability to harvest evidence instead of the other way around. The only assertion of real fact is that most of what does exist you have chosen to refuse to "believe" in. Likewise, 99.9999% of facts that others know, you say you are at liberty to refuse to believe in simply because you haven't been convinced and thus stubbornly refuse to believe without evidence that meets your personal standards. Columbus came back saying he had discovered a new land (tho thriving with natives at the time) - most believed him. I, and many others, say that God really does exist, He is discoverable on certain terms, and yet you refuse to believe. Go ahead and refuse, that will not change any facts that you have failed to judge properly, for which there would be abundant other examples.

Examples of false belief - most physicists do believe Einstein's 1911 assertion that the Twin Paradox (difference in time passed) was due to uniform motion - but SOME are smart enough to see that it is only due to acceleration and deceleration, not only that but the idea that uniform motion was the cause corrects the fundamental tenets of Einstein's own special theory, a fact not lost on many. Not only is the truth obvious, but data in the late 1900s do support the correct version. Still, Einstein's stature is such, and the logic challenging enough, that few dare to contradict this obviously false conclusion, and a great many notable scientists yet provide flawed examples to prove this falsehood.

Note that we are dealing with truth on two levels here, the first being a matter of logical satisfaction. That is one kind of evidence. The second is a matter of physical evidence. To many famous men of great intellectual achievement the truth of God was both clearly logical and experience, so not worth an argument. If I had to rely on someone else's word, I'd accept theirs and not yours, sorry, and I do find the logic they used to be valid. Many others do not, so the only proof acceptable to all is that NO proof is acceptable to everyone, but the truth does not rely on the judgement of anyone, no more than a flat Earth existed because people once refused to believe it could be spherical. Likewise, the existence of God does not depend on evidence, proof or human judgement. The best that you can come up with is that you just don't know (as of yet).

The second level is physical evidence. That's going to be darned hard to come by considering that God is NOT a physical being. It seems not at all rational that one would require physical proof for the existence of a non-physical entity. Nor is the existence of a non-physical entity a matter of imagination. You might believe that to be the case, but that does NOT make you correct. This is where heady philosphical arguements about the existence of free will (and God) came about. Strictly by the books of modern physics, which is true as far as they can go, free will, consciousness, and time do NOT exist, can NOT exist - we are simply the passive outcome of long chains of molecular reactions. It may be necessary to believe in the illusions of free will and consciousness to get by in life, but there is absolutely NO physical evidence that such things exist; in fact, they really do NOT in terms of our most advanced scientific knowledge (check it out). Thus, your choice to believe or not believe is as irrelevant as my own. There is NO evidence in the scientifically physical sense that acts or opinions have arisen out of any choice and are therefore of no import. It is you and I then, who do not exist except in the sense that trees and rocks exist without free will or conscious thought.

[Abs like J']

Courtesy of Alan:

My question, then, (fumbling for good examples) you have no evidence at all that there was a bag of money under my neighbor's gargabe can. You have NO evidence that there is a $20 bill in my wallet. You have NO evidence that the significance of a randomized block is owed to covariance among all combinations of treatments. These things are all true, but people yet use this funny logic that because they don't have evidence (acceptable to their standard of such) that some thing really does NOT exist. That kind of puts a person in a self created black hole. Reality bites here.

People may not have evidence of such at one particular moment, but I have methods for determining whether there is a bag under a garbage can, money in a wallet, etc. Whether a person believes such things or not at any given moment, they are capable of discovering whether such claims are true or false.

Belief that the physical universe is all that there could be is similarly flawed. It is all that we CAN see with our limited eyes... The only imagination at work here is that existence depends on your ability to harvest evidence instead of the other way around... Columbus came back saying he had discovered a new land (tho thriving with natives at the time) - most believed him. I, and many others, say that God really does exist, He is discoverable on certain terms, and yet you refuse to believe. Go ahead and refuse, that will not change any facts that you have failed to judge properly, for which there would be abundant other examples.

Columbus falls into my above response regarding the means to verify or refute a particular claim. As to any god(s) existing, the terms you set forth were patently unscientific and could be utilized to "discover" virtually any creation of the human imagination. If I got to pick and choose my parameters for discovering an invisible pink dragon, I too could explain to people how such an entity is "discoverable on certain terms." There is a reason we apply the scientific method to discovering the truth rather than setting arbitrary parameters and accepting grossly subjective "evidence."

...the existence of God does not depend on evidence, proof or human judgement. The best that you can come up with is that you just don't know (as of yet).

I don't claim to know whether any number of god(s) or alleged supernatural entities exist. What I recognize is that there is neither evidence or logical reason to accept a belief in any god(s) or alleged supernatural entities.

The second level is physical evidence. That's going to be darned hard to come by considering that God is NOT a physical being. It seems not at all rational that one would require physical proof for the existence of a non-physical entity. Nor is the existence of a non-physical entity a matter of imagination.

It's going to be darned hard to come by evidence of the 5,678 other gods that exist too, isn't it? Surely a Christian or otherwise monotheist wouldn't require me to provide any physical proof for the existence of 5,677 other non-physical entities... nor would they simply assume the existence of such non-physical entities a matter of imagination.

Otseng's initial post posed the questions:

• Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real? If God doesn't exist, what reasons are there to believe that God doesn't exist?

Your answer to the first question appears to be yes. And in the absence of physical evidence or persuasive logic, the answer to the second question appears to be simply that you can't conclusively rule it out. For me, I find it unreasonable to simply assume existence based on the inability to completely rule it out, as that leaves room open to arbitrarily accept the existence of a vast number of things -- including any singular creator or a multitude of creators, any number of supernatural entities here on Earth, or a conspiracy theory about alien elephants living beneath the surface of Pluto.

If you disagree, and have some other reason for belief, by all means correct my assessment based around your most recent post.

[Alan]

<snip Abs>There is a reason we apply the scientific method to discovering the truth rather than setting arbitrary parameters and accepting grossly subjective "evidence." ...What I recognize is that there is neither evidence or logical reason to accept a belief in any god(s) or alleged supernatural entities. ... <endsnip>

Well, I knew this was going to be rough. "We" apply the scientific method? Actually, there is no firm structure or sacred use of such method - Einstein's original work was based on logic only, some of it flawed, and whether later confirmed by measurement or not, the "truth" would not be affected either way. Anyway, such questions apply only to physical measurements - God is not physical and not measurable. Other men of strong intellectual stature throughout history have arrived objectively and correctly by logical means that God does exist. Sorry, but you're outranked by men of better stuff.

As for "evidence..." The same applies, though not in terms of physical measurement. It might be good for you to realize that this modern science vs religion claptrap contradicts the thinking of great scientists responsible for the origins and development of science (The Scientific Revolution) which were strictly driven by metaphysical assumptions. Einstein is much touted for his humanist, non-deistic philosophy, but the fact is that he contributed little to such advancements in science (as he admitted himself) - these were owed more to his contemporaries like Lorenz and Poincare (and much earlier deistic thinkers), distinguished men of science who would readily tell you that there is no reality in scientific theory at all... "(these) are only free creations of the human mind, not representations of reality. (Poincare)" Poincare's statement to that effect included an ironclad mathematical proof that no measurements can predict real outcomes beyond a limited point, what we now know of as Chaos Theory. Indeed, scientific methods are capable of providing only extremely limited explanations of reality.

Raising "comparative" absurdities such as the existence of many Gods is not logically sound, either. Sure, there are people who believe absurd things, but not all that they believe is necessarily absurd, you simply don't know. The question as to whether or not God exists is much weightier than dumb comparisons such as the existence of flying twinkies, shame on you for using such notions. By the way, I suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies, because using distortions for attacking an assertion are not sound, even that of flying twinkies.

Your negative assertion that the truth of God is not verifiable, therefore untrue, is also entirely unsound. It is based on entirely untenable premises... the fact is that little that is true can be verified, scientifically or otherwise. Also, that the truth of God can be verified logically is still a matter of strong disagreement, but science is restricted to matters of physical reality only, so such measurements would not apply to proving the existence of God. You should not ask that they be.

It seems distracting to muddy a good arguement with such circus-like irrelevants as conspiracy theory and little grey aliens. Most "conspiracy" notions begin simply with the study of outcomes following the operation of public opinion, though "wackos" do get carried away attributing them to entirely conscious and widespread deliberate premeditation. But to some obscure degree, a little of this is always true. Oswald obviously did not act alone, but the degree to which he was aided consciously by collaborators with premeditated detail, well, no one knows or can. Also, I really hate to get into the grey alien matter, being it is marked with the same ridiculous distortions, but according to some scientists of stature, they do exist. You'll say that these are nothing but the combined imaginations of subjects and investigators, and I'd agree with you very strongly. Nevertheless, and I really hate to say this, there is a slim thread of reality behind such things, more than you would believe, tho absolutely no physical evidence could be provided suitable to your doubting mind (or anyone's, in most cases).

[Abs like J']

From Alan:

...such questions apply only to physical measurements - God is not physical and not measurable. Other men of strong intellectual stature throughout history have arrived objectively and correctly by logical means that God does exist. Sorry, but you're outranked by men of better stuff.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The question as to whether or not God exists is much weightier than dumb comparisons such as the existence of flying twinkies, shame on you for using such notions. By the way, I suggest you do some reading on logical fallacies, because using distortions for attacking an assertion are not sound, even that of flying twinkies.

Might my brushing up on logical fallacies include Appeals to Authority? Perhaps rather than arguing that because men of strong intellectual stature have arrived at a conclusion it is correct, you could provide all who view this topic with the arguments of these men so that we may see how it was they arrived at their conclusions. Suggesting they be inherently correct in all of their conclusions on the basis of intellectual comparison ignores the actual issue... but being so concerned with logical fallacies I'm sure you're aware of that.

As to dumb comparisons and referrals to straw-men (#3), your argument, as I stated in my last posting, appears to be one of assuming a god exists because you can't rule it out. I didn't suggest that the idea of subterranian Plutonian elephants refuted your position, but referenced them to indicate that your stance appears to be one which could allow others to accept such notions. In your most recent post you have gone on to say:

...Indeed, scientific methods are capable of providing only extremely limited explanations of reality... Sure, there are people who believe absurd things, but not all that they believe is necessarily absurd, you simply don't know... the fact is that little that is true can be verified, scientifically or otherwise. Also, that the truth of God can be verified logically is still a matter of strong disagreement, but science is restricted to matters of physical reality only, so such measurements would not apply to proving the existence of God...

So on one hand I shouldn't compare such absurd notions as subterranian Plutonian elephants or flying twinkies, while on the other not all things believed are necessarily absurd. On top of this you tell me that we are only capable of limited explanations of reality and that little of what is true can be verified.

What I'm getting from this is that it is a sound position to believe in god because science is incapable of saying one way or another and that while certain beliefs may seem absurd to some, not all such beliefs are themselves absurd. So why is it acceptable to adhere to a belief in one god on the grounds that science is unable to confirm or deny, but "dumb" to then suggest that this same scientific inability is unable to confirm or deny the existence of multiple gods or the proposed subterranean Plutonian elephants?

If I'm simply not understanding you and you aren't simply arguing for the existence of god on the basis of scientific inability, by all means straighten me out and clarify the issue for me. If that is the case then it would seem inconsistent to accept a monotheistic belief on the grounds of scientific inability and arbitrarily reject other suppositions which are equally beyond the realm of scientific ability. Simply labeling polytheistic belief as a "comparative absurdity" doesn't tell me why it is absurd following the line of reasoning you're presenting.

Also, before I close this out, you stated in your most recent post:

Your negative assertion that the truth of God is not verifiable, therefore untrue, is also entirely unsound.

Unless I should be misrepresented, I haven't said that the inability to provide evidence of a singular god is evidence of non-existence. I have said simply that there isn't reason to assume such existence and that were we to assume such existence without solid logic or evidenciary support, we could equally assume the existence of numerous deities and alleged supernatural creatures.

[Alan]

[quote="Abs like J' Might my brushing up on logical fallacies include ...Argument_from_authority]Appeals to Authority? Perhaps rather than arguing that because men of strong intellectual stature have arrived at a conclusion it is correct, you could provide all who view this topic with the arguments of these men so that we may see how it was they arrived at their conclusions. [end quote]

Well, this is one of many ways you keep sidestepping the real issue. Any educated person ought to be aware of the notable achievements of scholars throughout history, and this is, after all an intellectual forum. Additionally, you've buried my point with the same nonesense. I'll try to keep from wasting more time by saying it again, no man ought to be obligated to meet your requirements for evidence or logical proof, least of all myself, but better men than either you are I have been well recognized in so doing - do some reading, and please do not burden me with the task of telling you that such men exist - didn't you ever attend high school? Wow, come on, man, you can do better than that.

Likewise, comparisons about pink elephants and such atempts at trifling rather than sticking to the point... NOT relevant. If you think the idea of God is that absurd, then why are you tinkering around on this kind of forum? Methinks you are simply making a pain of yourself. If you're that convinced that only that which you think might exist can exist, and so poised to scoff both at the validity of priori argument and the personal claims of others, then for what reason might you be here?

The kind of sparring and opinionated horn blowing that you claim to be so intellectually elevated can be found cheaply on any atheist or agnostic forum. Why not sharpen your talent somewhere else with those whom you believe to be of better intellectual stuff? Oh, yeah, it's just way easy to split hairs and find fault, makes you feel so much smarter than the rest of those gullible dodos who believe things that you haven't been able to see from your lofty position above the cosmos. I get it, now.

[Abs like J']

As I recall, the issue of this topic is:

• Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real? If God doesn't exist, what reasons are there to believe that God doesn't exist?

I'm not sidestepping the issue at all. Throughout my posts I've considered what has been offered by yourself, Otseng and juber, and I have replied to each of you accordingly. As I have said in my last two posts, it would appear that your reason for holding a belief in monotheism is that neither science or logic can conclusively rule out the existence of a singular god. I have suggested you correct me if I've interpreted your position incorrectly and further addressed the issue of how such reasoning -- if it be your position -- appears to allow the arbitrary assumption of a multitude of entities.

I do not see any correction or clarification of your position to suggest that I am reading it wrong, and it further more seems as though your most recent post is little more than an ad hominem attack against me.

Courtesy of Alan:

Any educated person ought to be aware of the notable achievements of scholars throughout history, and this is, after all an intellectual forum... better men than either you are I have been well recognized in so doing - do some reading, and please do not burden me with the task of telling you that such men exist - didn't you ever attend high school? Wow, come on, man, you can do better than that.

I'm aware of the notable achievements of many scholars throughout history and have never suggested that such men do not exist. Why you would make any reference as to their existence, as though I had denied it, eludes me after several read throughs. The achievements of certain men do not, however, suggest that their belief or nonbelief in the existence of supernatural deities is correct. Thus, I addressed the issue of Appeals to Authority and suggested that you provide the theological arguments of these men for consideration rather than simply going about dropping names.

Likewise, comparisons about pink elephants and such atempts at trifling rather than sticking to the point... NOT relevant.

Besides not having ever specified a color for the proposed subterranean Plutonian elephants, they were never meant to be any form of comparison. Along with a slew of other proposed gods they were brought up to question the seeming implication of your position that belief in a singular deity be justified essentially by an Argument from Ignorance -- that it be assumed since logic and science cannot as yet conclusively reject such hypothesis. Both the elephants and the 5,000 plus deities I suggested are relevant because they challenge the consistency of accepting one proposition by the same means you seem to reject a multitude of others.

As I've said before, what I'm getting from you is that you feel that a singular god exists and that the reason for believing in a singular god is that logic and science cannot conclusively rule it out at this time. If I'm wrong, you need to correct me and clarify your position. If this is what you are suggesting, then you need to lay out how it is you can accept a monotheistic belief on the basis of logical and scientific inability while simultaneously rejecting other hypothesis which might also be recognized via logical or scientific inability. And just so we're clear... attacking me is not a means of clarification.

If your concern is to avoid irrelevancy, you would do well to stick to the issue and avoid ad hominem attacks. My participation at this forum, assumptions about my character and suggestions that I go somewhere else are neither of concern to this topic or honest means by which to conduct a debate.