On natural phenomena

Diagoras · Post by **Diagoras** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Inspired by this quote in the â€˜Questions about the earthâ€™ 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.

Iâ€™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 â€˜resolvedâ€™ as used above. Used as a verb, it is usually defined as â€˜to come to a determination; to make up one's mindâ€™, but I think it makes the statement clearer if â€˜resolvedâ€™ is taken as meaning â€˜to establish the truthâ€™ (i.e. confirm, settle, prove).

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

So, rewritten slightly, the question for debate is:

â€œNo observed natural phenomena previously attributed to a god has been proven to be explained in favour of a god rather than by natural phenomena.â€�

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:15 pm

Willum wrote:
harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

How would your life be better with a convincing argument for God's existence?
Well, of course there would be little need for people to avoid simple issues by asking tangential questions.
That would be a conSIDERABLE relief to non-theists everywhere.

It seems pertinent to me.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:25 pm

harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

How would your life be better with a convincing argument for God's existence?

It would make no difference.

If a decent righteous God exists I wouldn't need to change my character or behavior. So no changes would occur there.

I'm already not afraid of permanent death so a convincing argument that there is life after death isn't going to be a relief of any fear or anxiety of death.

As far as I can see the only way a convincing argument for a God's existence could change my life is if that argument included evidence for a truly evil God that cannot be trusted and is not righteous.

In other words, if you could provide a convincing argument for a horrific evil God that would certainly change my life. (i.e. it would cause me to become extremely depressed and disgusted with reality). But that certainly wouldn't "better" my life right?

And convincing me that a decent loving trustworthy God exists isn't going to better my life either. In fact, that would probably cause me to want to die ASAP so I could go to this supposedly better place.

It would also cause me to wonder why I'm in this not-so-great world in the first place. So convincing me that a God exists would probably just cause me to become anxious about asking this God a whole bunch of questions.

Not with the intent of having God defend anything, but to simply explain everything.

After all, if this God is so loving and trustworthy then what would be the problem with explaining everything to me so I can better understand why things are the way they are

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.

And I also agree with Willum.

What do my thoughts on the potential existence of a God have to do with whether you can provide any "good" philosophical arguments for the existence of a God?

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:55 pm

[Replying to Divine Insight]

What do my thoughts on the potential existence of a God have to do with whether you can provide any "good" philosophical arguments for the existence of a God?

If we don't see a benefit in believing in X, then chances are we tend to resist and it just becomes a lot of wasted energy for both of us. But, if you were struggling in life and really want to believe in God then maybe it's worthwhile to discuss. I find that when people resist it's because they really are happy with where they are in life, so why not do something more enjoyable with your time rather than someone trying to convince you you're wrong?

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:11 am

harvey1 wrote: If we don't see a benefit in believing in X, then chances are we tend to resist and it just becomes a lot of wasted energy for both of us.

Sorry, but apparently you are attempting to push your way of thinking onto me. I don't chose to believe or disbelieve in things based on whether or not I see a benefit in them. I simply weigh the facts and the evidence and accept what appears to be truthful whether I personally like it or not.

Examples:

I don't like the idea of environmental degradation and climate change but I believe in it because that's where the evidence points.

I don't like the idea that the government in my country is corrupt and destroying everything we used to stand for. But I believe it's happening because that's where the evidence points.

I'm not thrilled with the idea that I'm getting older and I'm not as healthy as I used to be, but I believe it because that's where the evidence points.

So unlike you, I don't choose to believe in things simply because I think there might be benefits in them.

harvey1 wrote: But, if you were struggling in life and really want to believe in God then maybe it's worthwhile to discuss.

Are you saying that you have a theology that only a desperate person could be convinced to accept?

That doesn't say much for your theology.

harvey1 wrote: I find that when people resist it's because they really are happy with where they are in life, so why not do something more enjoyable with your time rather than someone trying to convince you you're wrong?

Resist?

Why not face the truth? You simply don't have any compelling arguments. Even by your own admission just now, you have openly confessed that the only people who would fall for your flawed theology are people who are in desperate situations.

I wouldn't go around bragging about that as a feature of your theology if I were you.

If you can't offer a compelling argument for your theology to people who are happy and not under duress, then you don't have a very compelling theology to be sure.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:20 am

[Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

Again, it's not my wish to get into an extensive debate with someone who totally has no interest in believing in God. You might not realize it, but psychological resistance is real. You can taunt me by saying I don't have arguments to support my theistic beliefs (or express our evolutionary vestige of intimidating those who invade our territory) if you want, but I assure you that we'd only be wasting a great deal of time. It's a waste of time to respond to cavil after cavil, and for what?

Post by **Tcg** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:30 am

harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 14 by Divine Insight]

Again, it's not my wish to get into an extensive debate with someone who totally has no interest in believing in God. You might not realize it, but psychological resistance is real. You can taunt me by saying I don't have arguments to support my theistic beliefs (or express our evolutionary vestige of intimidating those who invade our territory) if you want, but I assure you that we'd only be wasting a great deal of time. It's a waste of time to respond to cavil after cavil, and for what?

One can only wonder then why you are posting on a site created for debate. Even more puzzling is why you'd do so in the Science and Religion sub-forum.

Tcg

Diagoras · Post by **Diagoras** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:31 am

While tangential debates canâ€™t be prevented, I really wasnâ€™t after answers to Godâ€™s existence itself. More about observations about things (e.g. earthquakes) throughout history that have been previously ascribed to him before science has provided an answer.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:36 am

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

DI mentioned the concept of proof and I was merely pointing out that theistic arguments are philosophical arguments. I'm not sure wha DI meant by proof, but usually metaphysics doesn't entail those kind of arguments.

Post by **Tcg** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:46 am

harvey1 wrote: [Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

DI mentioned the concept of proof and I was merely pointing out that theistic arguments are philosophical arguments. I'm not sure wha DI meant by proof, but usually metaphysics doesn't entail those kind of arguments.

I was addressing your comment, not DI's, when you stated this:

Again, it's not my wish to get into an extensive debate with someone who totally has no interest in believing in God.

You seem to have no interest in debate at all.

Tcg

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:56 am

harvey1 wrote: DI mentioned the concept of proof and I was merely pointing out that theistic arguments are philosophical arguments. I'm not sure wha DI meant by proof, but usually metaphysics doesn't entail those kind of arguments.

Sorry but if you had a sound philosophical argument you could present that to happy people who are not under duress and desperately seeking to believing in fairy tales.

What you are talking about is not philosophical arguments but rather psychological coercion aimed at desperate vulnerable people.

Apparently you don't even know the difference between philosophy and the psychological coercion of distressed victims.