The basis of the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2011, 04:51 AM
The basis of the existence of God
Hi everyone! So. I assume everyone here thinks that God is just a figment of human imagination. However, there are a few things in life we may not be able to explain, and some may say God did it. Let's establish the basis of the existence of God, for if neither party has a perfect response, there's no point arguing. So, here's my question I posed to a friend of mine...

So, on what basis God isn't a result of human imagination?

On the basis that God ISN'T grounded in human form, and you can find logical reasonings for phenomenon in this world which can be explained by the existence of God, argument Deus ex machina. Imagination is imagination as it does not exist nor does it correlate with the world. This method of argument is an attempt by die-hard atheists to corner the theist that there is no God, He is just a figment of imagination. It then begs the question: What if all you knew was only a figment of your imagination? What if even YOU are a figment of IMAGINTION? God's existence can be logically explained through his phenomena which occurs in the world. If you doubt God exists, you are saying the inexplicable does not exist. And even the die-hard scientism supporter has to conclude that there are aspects of life which science CANNOT explain. Neither are they of the physical world, NOR can the phenomenon be replicated, ceteris paribus. To say that God doesn't exist, when God is the only explanation which can explain these phenomena, is to not acknowledge that these exist. Are you going to be as short-sighted as these, foolishly not admitting the proof before your eyes? If you are, and you choose to say God is merely a figment of your imagination, we have nothing to talk about, because your argument cannot see beyond it's fault.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 07:03 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
This is a confusing paragraph. What phenomena are you talking about that can only be explained via God?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 07:31 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
Things don't need an explanation in order to exist. This is a highly convoluted god of the gaps argument in which the only way untestable things can exist is if god exists. We learned a long time ago that the human brain can do a lot of stupid things. Our truth seeking for a long time now has been rather outside of humanity. Basically, humans are living the simulation and can't always tell it's a simulation, but the confines of the simulation have observable facts which can be recorded and understood.

This argument can only have pertinence if someone believes the ability to not believe in something actually makes it non-existent.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 07:58 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
Try taking a different perspective.
Which god has an excuse to maybe exist and which doesn't?
Consider the attributes (according to hir own pr) of each particular deity (Jehovah, FSM, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Shiva) and decide whether s/he is likely to be real.
If you can't credit any of them, you may then go on to posit a different kind of deity to fill the unexplained parts of human knowledge - taking care that you don't misrepresent human knowledge, which means you need to learn quite a lot about what phenomena have been explained and what haven't.
Chances are, you won't collect a dangerous fanatical army of believers, so that's okay.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 08:23 AM
 
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 07:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is a confusing paragraph. What phenomena are you talking about that can only be explained via God?

What bothers me about all these discussions about the “existence of god” (or otherwise) is that even some atheists use the word ‘god’ as if we knew what the word stood for.

In science we also talk about undefined concepts like dark matter and dark energy, but we have SOME foundation to assume that such things exist: we observe the distribution of stars in the Milky way Galaxy, we observe the accelerating expansion of the universe and, in knowledge of Newton’s universal gravitational laws we assume that something must be responsible for the observed deviation from this universality we came to rely on for hundreds of years.

There are many things in science that we don’t know what they are, what they are made of, what they look like. But we have tons of observations that point in the direction of natural phenomena.

Not so in religion.

The concept of what they call ‘god’ is NOT based on any observation, any logic, it just hangs in the air, on a string, like a deflated empty balloon after a drunken birthday party.

I suggest we stop talking about it as if it was equivalent to possible phenomena for which we have observational foundation to believe in.

That is why I always talk about “the word ‘god’” instead of just ‘god’.
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 09:50 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
Good point Zatamon. I suppose when I use the word god I am referring to the Judaeo-Christian god. The fact that this character is defined based on assumed characteristics is understood. For the generic term "god" there is certainly no universally accepted definition. Perhaps it would be best to say "supernatural entity and/or force/power." We have exactly the same amount of proof that this exists as we do the Judaeo-Christian god.

To the point you are making and what I think the OP is trying to say, unexplained phenomena are not assigned under the default category of god or supernatural. So, I am still waiting to see what unexplained phenomena the OP is referring to. My guess is that whatever phenomena the OP comes up with, there will be at least one scientific idea or hypothesis that accompanies it.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 10:45 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 04:51 AM)robotworld Wrote:  On the basis that God ISN'T grounded in human form, and you can find logical reasonings for phenomenon in this world which can be explained by the existence of God, argument Deus ex machina. Imagination is imagination as it does not exist nor does it correlate with the world. This method of argument is an attempt by die-hard atheists to corner the theist that there is no God, He is just a figment of imagination. It then begs the question: What if all you knew was only a figment of your imagination? What if even YOU are a figment of IMAGINTION? God's existence can be logically explained through his phenomena which occurs in the world. If you doubt God exists, you are saying the inexplicable does not exist. And even the die-hard scientism supporter has to conclude that there are aspects of life which science CANNOT explain. Neither are they of the physical world, NOR can the phenomenon be replicated, ceteris paribus. To say that God doesn't exist, when God is the only explanation which can explain these phenomena, is to not acknowledge that these exist. Are you going to be as short-sighted as these, foolishly not admitting the proof before your eyes? If you are, and you choose to say God is merely a figment of your imagination, we have nothing to talk about, because your argument cannot see beyond it's fault.

I'm finding this paragraph really, really confusing. I have no idea what the point is that we may be a figment of Imagination. I think the general point you are making is that there are things that science cannot currently explain and those things are, therefore, proof of god, or a god, or some supernatural phenomenon. Is that about right? If so, as Lilith points out, this is the "god of the gaps" argument.

Here's the problem with your position: it assumes that our ability to learn about the universe is not only limited, but purposely limited (by god) and things we can't really explain today we won't be able to explain tomorrow. The problem is that we learn more and more every day. You are assuming that we will hit a point where we can learn no more - and perhaps that is true - but to this point our knowledge grows by leaps and bounds. And, as we continue to learn more and more about our world and our universe, god's hiding places become smaller and smaller. At this point, there is no reasonable reason to believe that we can't eventually solve all of the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. Perhaps we won't, perhaps things are too complex for our minds to totally grasp. But, given what we've learned I think it's safe to say that there is a scientific explanation for almost all phenomena, we just need to figure it out. And, if we can't, it still does not mean there is automatically a god.

It was not that long ago, in relative time, that we could not understand volcanoes, earth quakes, thunder and lightening. Once upon a time we thought these things were the evidence of a wrathful god or gods. And, today we know better. Well, most of us do, anyway. There are always a few who are so scared of the future that they hold onto superstitions and believe that an almighty god speaks to us through weather and shaking ground. But, the less willfully ignorant - and majority - of our species realizes that these events have perfectly understandable and explicable causes that do not require any supernatural interference.

So, if I am understanding your argument correctly, all I can say is that as man continues to learn and explain the universe, your faith and conviction will continue to shrink.

Regarding the word "god", I usually use it generically unless I'm speaking about a certain religion. I think most people understand from context.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
06-09-2011, 12:24 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
IMO one of the best arguments against there being a god is the fact that almost no believers can agree on what it is. It seems as though each believer morphs him/her/it into a mirror image of their own mind.

If there were an all knowing, all powerful, loving being, he would do a much better job of communicating his existence to his creations.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 02:20 PM
 
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 12:24 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  If there were an all knowing, all powerful, loving being, he would do a much better job of communicating his existence to his creations.

Maybe he/she/it is a bastard who enjoys torturing his/her/its creations with uncertainty?

Huh
Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2011, 03:36 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 10:45 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(06-09-2011 04:51 AM)robotworld Wrote:  On the basis that God ISN'T grounded in human form, and you can find logical reasonings for phenomenon in this world which can be explained by the existence of God, argument Deus ex machina. Imagination is imagination as it does not exist nor does it correlate with the world. This method of argument is an attempt by die-hard atheists to corner the theist that there is no God, He is just a figment of imagination. It then begs the question: What if all you knew was only a figment of your imagination? What if even YOU are a figment of IMAGINTION? God's existence can be logically explained through his phenomena which occurs in the world. If you doubt God exists, you are saying the inexplicable does not exist. And even the die-hard scientism supporter has to conclude that there are aspects of life which science CANNOT explain. Neither are they of the physical world, NOR can the phenomenon be replicated, ceteris paribus. To say that God doesn't exist, when God is the only explanation which can explain these phenomena, is to not acknowledge that these exist. Are you going to be as short-sighted as these, foolishly not admitting the proof before your eyes? If you are, and you choose to say God is merely a figment of your imagination, we have nothing to talk about, because your argument cannot see beyond it's fault.

I'm finding this paragraph really, really confusing. I have no idea what the point is that we may be a figment of Imagination. I think the general point you are making is that there are things that science cannot currently explain and those things are, therefore, proof of god, or a god, or some supernatural phenomenon. Is that about right? If so, as Lilith points out, this is the "god of the gaps" argument.

Here's the problem with your position: it assumes that our ability to learn about the universe is not only limited, but purposely limited (by god) and things we can't really explain today we won't be able to explain tomorrow. The problem is that we learn more and more every day. You are assuming that we will hit a point where we can learn no more - and perhaps that is true - but to this point our knowledge grows by leaps and bounds. And, as we continue to learn more and more about our world and our universe, god's hiding places become smaller and smaller. At this point, there is no reasonable reason to believe that we can't eventually solve all of the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. Perhaps we won't, perhaps things are too complex for our minds to totally grasp. But, given what we've learned I think it's safe to say that there is a scientific explanation for almost all phenomena, we just need to figure it out. And, if we can't, it still does not mean there is automatically a god.

It was not that long ago, in relative time, that we could not understand volcanoes, earth quakes, thunder and lightening. Once upon a time we thought these things were the evidence of a wrathful god or gods. And, today we know better. Well, most of us do, anyway. There are always a few who are so scared of the future that they hold onto superstitions and believe that an almighty god speaks to us through weather and shaking ground. But, the less willfully ignorant - and majority - of our species realizes that these events have perfectly understandable and explicable causes that do not require any supernatural interference.

So, if I am understanding your argument correctly, all I can say is that as man continues to learn and explain the universe, your faith and conviction will continue to shrink.

Regarding the word "god", I usually use it generically unless I'm speaking about a certain religion. I think most people understand from context.

Big Grin Thanks for your help. I'll try to use your points to counter his argument Smile

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: