What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
So what you're saying is "Lets kick faith from this altogether. It has no basis anymore as to why people should have to believe."

But faith is there so that belief can be preserved.

If god was proven to be real, how many people do you think would revolt against it, after its demands were issued?

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 10:07 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(16-01-2014 09:38 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  I feel like lookingforanswers is desperate, hence his handle. I, too, felt like you during my "deconversion." You so desperately want there to be a god so the first X amount of years of your life weren't a religious waste and total lie. And so as you start to doubt, you look for someone to give you assurance that there's something divine out there to give your life meaning.

Eventually you will learn it's OK to have doubts, and that "spirituality" you mention is just your subconscious clinging to a childhood security blanket that you need to put away in the closet.

It's a very typical religious thing to say, "Scientists are always trying to prove god doesn't exist," when in fact that statement couldn't be more wrong. Scientists want to prove what is true about the natural world and aren't on a crusade to prove any god doesn't exist. So, in your case, why would scientists want to prove one DOES exist? They have no interest in fake supernatural beings, only truth.

I'm time you will see the truth.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't agree with your characterization. I don't want to get into my own beliefs too much, but I also don't want to have my thoughts dismissed on an ad hominem basis, so just briefly...

I have been looking for answers for a long time. I was a philosophy student in undergrad and studied a lot of different ideas regarding God, morality, etc. Ultimately, I am still a theist, I believe in the existence of a God, but I believe that God gave us rationality and intelligence for a reason: So we can use it. So, I don't believe in blind faith and my morality and belief system is based on what makes sense rationally. I am always looking for answers, which is why my belief system has changed and evolved over time based on being presented with cogent arguments on certain points. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I keep looking.

Honestly, the reason I am on these forums is to better understand atheism, because I happen to be in love with, and engaged to, an atheist. I can understand the aspect of atheism that involves rejecting modern religious institutions, which certainly have their issues, I just haven't been able to wrap my head around the idea of rejecting the existence of any creator based on the arguments with which I have been presented (which is why I started a discussion on that issue yesterday at http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...t-atheism)

What is rational about believing in a creator when there is no evidence of one?
Is it because you can't think of how the universe exists or came into being without one?
That is the argument from ignorance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
16-01-2014, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2014 01:21 PM by TwoCultSurvivor.)
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
This notion that God is not provable is nonsense. God is eminently provable.

The problem is not that he's not provable. The problem is that theists keep contriving reasons why he is consistently unproved.

I'll use my own experience as an example. I used to believe in speaking in tongues. Did it all the time. According to my faith, I was bringing forth a language that I had never learned, speaking words that my mind did not understand. I convinced myself that I was speaking a real language. I now recognize what I did as something called free vocalization, a more sophisticated form of gibberish. But I was sincere.

If I were really bringing forth a language, then it is likely that some linguist somewhere would have been able to recognize it and identify it. But we all know what happens when linguists try to examine the phenomenon of speaking in tongues: no one identifies a language. Ever. It just doesn't happen.

The excuse is always the same: blame the linguist, who couldn't possibly be expected to recognize every language spoken in the history of man (since Babel, of course). Or blame God -- he doesn't WANT people to verify the language, so he energizes the speaker with a language no one in the room can recognize. Or it's tongues of angels. You know, the language Michael speaks to Gabriel when there are no humans around. It's God of the Gaps in practice. God hides when an expert in the field he claims to affect actually examines what's happening. Run, Yahweh, run!

God hides when scientists try to study the effectiveness of prayer.
God hides when unbiased people investigate claims of miraculous healing.
God hides whenever anyone looks for proof of his existence.

God would be provable in a heartbeat if he would just stop hiding.

What we get instead is a God who is never proved, and excuses from the faithful as to why he doesn't want to be proved. But he loves us, and it would just pain his heart to see us burn in hell forever for refusing to believe in him after he did so much to hide from us.

Seriously, screw you, Jehovah.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
16-01-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
I was unaware I was using an ad hominem by saying it seems like you are desperate for answers. If you felt I was attacking you instead if your argument with that, which I wasn't, then I apologize, but the issue still stands: Why would scientists want to bother proving a god exists when there is no reason to do so?

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Here's how science works: How/why does that happen? I don't know, let's try to figure it out.

Now, insert "god" into that initial question: How/why does God happen? It's a non-sequitur.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 03:59 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
Will, I would say the question isn't "How/why does God happen?", the question is "How/why does reality exist?" (I'm sure there are other questions like "what is the basis of morality?" etc, but the existence of reality one has always been the one I have focused on)

So, if the question is "How/why does reality exist?" the existence of a creator God (intelligent design) is a theory answering that question. That's the reason why I think scientists would care about proving or disproving the existence of God. That is what the discussion in my other thread was about, but essentially that is why I have always had trouble with the idea of the non-existence of God. I just haven't heard a compelling argument for how anything exists without one (despite the best efforts of the people on the forum, who I should say were much more civil and constructive than I had anticipated coming in).

@TwoCultSurvivor, I was careful to try and preface that I wasn't actually talking about any specific modern religion's God, simply the existence of a creator. In theory, the answers to your questions could very well be that to an omnipotent, omniscient God we are all just ants who don't matter. In theory, the answer could be that he doesn't answer prayer, miraculously heal or even pay enough attention to humankind to even know anyone was looking for him. I think the discussion of the existence of the Christian God, Muslim God, etc, would be a different discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2014, 04:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-01-2014 04:13 PM by cheapthrillseaker.)
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  So, if the question is "How/why does reality exist?" the existence of a creator God (intelligent design) is a theory answering that question. That's the reason why I think scientists would care about proving or disproving the existence of God.

God isn't science, it's supernatural. Why do you think scientists are the ones who should prove god exists? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who make the claim like those who preach it to be so? But... but they just continue to preach...

Why? WHY IS THAT SO?!?

Because that is where the money is at. Why try to disprove something if that will take away all the money you make? The construct of faith allows these preachers to skip the whole logic and scientific approach. That is why faith is so important and key to their success; it keeps the money flowing in...

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
16-01-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  I just haven't heard a compelling argument for how anything exists without one

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

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-01-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  Will, I would say the question isn't "How/why does God happen?", the question is "How/why does reality exist?" (I'm sure there are other questions like "what is the basis of morality?" etc, but the existence of reality one has always been the one I have focused on)

And yet the one necessitates the other.

If the answer to a given question (why reality?) being given as "don't know" or "not answerable" bothers you so much, then why, by all noodly appendages, would you then be content with that exact answer when the question becomes why God?

(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  So, if the question is "How/why does reality exist?" the existence of a creator God (intelligent design) is a theory answering that question. That's the reason why I think scientists would care about proving or disproving the existence of God. That is what the discussion in my other thread was about, but essentially that is why I have always had trouble with the idea of the non-existence of God. I just haven't heard a compelling argument for how anything exists without one (despite the best efforts of the people on the forum, who I should say were much more civil and constructive than I had anticipated coming in).

God is not a theory.

God is a meaningless, incoherently-defined syllable used instead of a real answer of explanatory power and predictive utility.

Your view is, as I stated above, fundamentally incomplete. You have begun thinking but have not allowed the process to reach its natural conclusion.

If you are positing that some discrete external actor is responsible for our universe, very well. I freely admit of the possibility myself. However, it just raises further questions.

(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  @TwoCultSurvivor, I was careful to try and preface that I wasn't actually talking about any specific modern religion's God, simply the existence of a creator.

Which is then necessarily a deistic creator; an interventionist God is summarily disproven by the utter lack of any evidence of intervention ever (notwithstanding the myriad explicitly contradictory versions put forward).

(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  In theory, the answers to your questions could very well be that to an omnipotent, omniscient God we are all just ants who don't matter.

In which case our "relationship" with God, were such a thing even coherently conceptualized (a handwave, since words like "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are already meaningless) would be utterly irrelevant, and indeed so would all religion.

But that won't work as an explanation, either. If a God did anything observable, we could observe it. We don't. This is not a God who does not care about anthills - this is a God who very carefully and thoroughly makes a sustained and pervasive effort never to disturb them in any way. That's the precise opposite of uncaring!

(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  In theory, the answer could be that he doesn't answer prayer, miraculously heal or even pay enough attention to humankind to even know anyone was looking for him. I think the discussion of the existence of the Christian God, Muslim God, etc, would be a different discussion.

It is, because all you are really doing is making a (vague, feeble) case for deism.

The problem with it is this:
When questioning: "why reality"?
You answer: "a creator".
When asked: "why a creator"?
. . .

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-01-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: What if God is a provable phenomenon?
(16-01-2014 03:59 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  So, if the question is "How/why does reality exist?" the existence of a creator God (intelligent design) is a theory answering that question. That's the reason why I think scientists would care about proving or disproving the existence of God. That is what the discussion in my other thread was about, but essentially that is why I have always had trouble with the idea of the non-existence of God. I just haven't heard a compelling argument for how anything exists without one (despite the best efforts of the people on the forum, who I should say were much more civil and constructive than I had anticipated coming in).

I have never heard a logical argument for the existence of a creator.

It is always special pleading (God always existed, uncaused cause, blah, blah, blah) or begging the question.

I don't know how the universe came into existence, but no one else does, either.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: