I said "I've found some compelling evidence, personally". What I meant was that it's only evidence for me. I realize now that ",personally" can be taken to mean absolutely nothing and the sentence could be interpreted as "compelling evidence for everyone".If that's what you call 'compelling evidence', then so be it.
Does God Exist?
Kow,
- Scott
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Scott wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed that argument.
What was it, again?
.
The argument that God exists explains strange things happening is your reason for keeping an "open mind"?The only reason I keep an open mind is that strange things happen which can be explained most easily by the argument that God exists.
Sorry, I must have missed that argument.
What was it, again?
.
-
millipodium
It's a reason that's admittedly unreasonable. funny. I like it.Leyla Shen wrote:Scott wrote:
The argument that God exists explains strange things happening is your reason for keeping an "open mind"?The only reason I keep an open mind is that strange things happen which can be explained most easily by the argument that God exists.
Sorry, I must have missed that argument.
What was it, again?
.
It's like, my belief in god is similar to blaming the family pet for gas.
Not really a good sentence, but yes that's it. I didn't say I believe in God, I said I keep an open mind to the possibility. I'm not so deluded as to think I can know the truth of the matter simply by using...ahem..."logic" (Christians tend to be stupid, therefore God doesn't exist), or by making an "educated" (haha!) guess (I don't see God, therefore he doesn't exist!).The argument that God exists explains strange things happening is your reason for keeping an "open mind"?
Sorry, I must have missed that argument.
What was it, again?
- Scott
Does God Exist?
Does God Exist?
This question presupposes that we know what "God" means. But those who believe in god seem reluctant to define what they mean. So let’s take a step back and introduce some definitions.
(1) (Sociological - operational) A god is something that people worship in a religious sense; that is, something that people call a “godâ€. This is useful because we can apply it equally in monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic or atheistic contexts.
(2) (Judgemental) Implicit in (1) is the judgment that the posited god is worthy of religious worship. We might agree that the sun exists, but we would not agree that Apollo, the sun god, exists. We do not agree that the sun is worthy of religious worship, since it’s just a bunch of hydrogen and whatnot. Calling the sun a god is to make a statement that the sun has some particular properties (probably supernatural) that mean it should be worshipped. It should be noted that the object of religious worship may or may not exist, or may or may not take a physical form.
(3) In modern times, a specific god (Jehovah or Allah) is generally assumed to be the god in question, and is just referred to as “Godâ€. Although his nature is slippery, generally:
a. he is all-powerful
b. he created the universe, and the rules by which it runs
c. he has a moral interest in human activity, and defines what is moral and immoral
(4) There are other, non-religious uses of the word “god†that we are specifically not considering here, such as “a handsome man†or “a powerful rulerâ€.
Atheists can be divided into two broad categories, and these two categories can be understood in terms of the definitions above.
Weak atheism says “I have no god,†recognize that there are gods in the sense (1) above – that is, other people have gods. Other people do, in fact, worship things, which may or not exist, but that is their affair; the weak atheist has no such object that he worships.
Strong atheism says, “There is no god,†referring to the god in sense (2) or (3) above. That is, a strong atheist positively asserts that there is no object that is worthy of religious worship, and specifically reject the example of Jehovah or Allah. (*)
We should also define agnostic, since this word has a specific meaning that is not quite the way it is generally used: An agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
That is, an agnostic holds the position that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not; but this is in reference to a particular assumed nature of the god in question (“the ultimate causeâ€).
It’s also worth noting that those who refer to “The Totality†as “God†are declaring themselves to be, as I see it, pantheists, not atheists. Outside of debating with theists, atheists (strong or weak) generally have little use for the term “god.†It just doesn't come up.
The strong atheist is not agnostic; he has taken a position on this issue. Weak atheism is, therefore, the more easily defendable position; it’s just a statement that you personally don’t accept anything as a god.
Weak atheism is not a religious position. A weak atheist may or may not be agnostic. He does not have a position to defend. In any debate, the weak atheist holds the advantage that someone holding a strong position – either a strong atheist or a theist – is making a claim, and therefore has the responsibility of proving their position. The weak atheist has nothing to prove.
So the theist, setting out to prove some particular god, has at least three potential opponents with different points of view.
To the agnostic, he has to show that knowledge of god is possible. They will talk past each other endlessly unless they agree on what they mean by “godâ€, since agnosticism has an implicit definition of “god†that is probably different from what the theist has in mind.
To the strong atheist, he must prove not just the existence of the particular object or idea that is his diety, but he must also sell the judgment that this object or idea is worthy of worship; that it is, in fact, a god in sense (2), and most likely, also in sense (3).
With the weak atheist, the theist has additional questions to answer. He has to first define what he means by god - the weak theist has little use for this term, and may or may not have a definition in mind. He also must defend why he uses the term in this way.
Consider this analogy: let’s call someone who does not believe in unicorns an a-unicornist. If someone wants to convince him that unicorns exist, he’s first going to have to explain what he means by a unicorn – specifically, they must agree, for instance, that a horse with a horn taped to his forehead is not going to count, and “the idea of a unicorn†is not going to count as “a unicornâ€. If they can not agree on what would constitute a unicorn, then there is little surprise that one might maintain that they exist while another might say they don’t; nothing has been demonstrated to the a-unicornist, even though the unicornist might feel he has demonstrated something.
To the a-unicornist, he might also need to address issues like: why should I take this idea seriously? Is there evidence for the existence of unicorns? Is there a reason to take this idea seriously, or more seriously, than the existence of yeti, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, etc.? In short, why is this particular question worthy of being considered?
If the unicornist does not believe in leprechauns, etc., what is special about unicorns that makes them different from those other mythological beings? Is there some evidence for unicorns that is more credible than the evidence for leprechauns, etc.?
To the weak atheist, the theist must present his idea of god against the universe of all gods one could possibly consider.
(*)However, I think that strong atheists might accept the proposition that gods in sense (1) exist: there are things or ideas that people worship. I think a strong atheist could also, theoretically, reject that position, claiming that any such idea is necessarily self-contradictory and does not constitute a “thing†or is not a coherent idea.
This question presupposes that we know what "God" means. But those who believe in god seem reluctant to define what they mean. So let’s take a step back and introduce some definitions.
(1) (Sociological - operational) A god is something that people worship in a religious sense; that is, something that people call a “godâ€. This is useful because we can apply it equally in monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic or atheistic contexts.
(2) (Judgemental) Implicit in (1) is the judgment that the posited god is worthy of religious worship. We might agree that the sun exists, but we would not agree that Apollo, the sun god, exists. We do not agree that the sun is worthy of religious worship, since it’s just a bunch of hydrogen and whatnot. Calling the sun a god is to make a statement that the sun has some particular properties (probably supernatural) that mean it should be worshipped. It should be noted that the object of religious worship may or may not exist, or may or may not take a physical form.
(3) In modern times, a specific god (Jehovah or Allah) is generally assumed to be the god in question, and is just referred to as “Godâ€. Although his nature is slippery, generally:
a. he is all-powerful
b. he created the universe, and the rules by which it runs
c. he has a moral interest in human activity, and defines what is moral and immoral
(4) There are other, non-religious uses of the word “god†that we are specifically not considering here, such as “a handsome man†or “a powerful rulerâ€.
Atheists can be divided into two broad categories, and these two categories can be understood in terms of the definitions above.
Weak atheism says “I have no god,†recognize that there are gods in the sense (1) above – that is, other people have gods. Other people do, in fact, worship things, which may or not exist, but that is their affair; the weak atheist has no such object that he worships.
Strong atheism says, “There is no god,†referring to the god in sense (2) or (3) above. That is, a strong atheist positively asserts that there is no object that is worthy of religious worship, and specifically reject the example of Jehovah or Allah. (*)
We should also define agnostic, since this word has a specific meaning that is not quite the way it is generally used: An agnostic is a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
That is, an agnostic holds the position that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not; but this is in reference to a particular assumed nature of the god in question (“the ultimate causeâ€).
It’s also worth noting that those who refer to “The Totality†as “God†are declaring themselves to be, as I see it, pantheists, not atheists. Outside of debating with theists, atheists (strong or weak) generally have little use for the term “god.†It just doesn't come up.
The strong atheist is not agnostic; he has taken a position on this issue. Weak atheism is, therefore, the more easily defendable position; it’s just a statement that you personally don’t accept anything as a god.
Weak atheism is not a religious position. A weak atheist may or may not be agnostic. He does not have a position to defend. In any debate, the weak atheist holds the advantage that someone holding a strong position – either a strong atheist or a theist – is making a claim, and therefore has the responsibility of proving their position. The weak atheist has nothing to prove.
So the theist, setting out to prove some particular god, has at least three potential opponents with different points of view.
To the agnostic, he has to show that knowledge of god is possible. They will talk past each other endlessly unless they agree on what they mean by “godâ€, since agnosticism has an implicit definition of “god†that is probably different from what the theist has in mind.
To the strong atheist, he must prove not just the existence of the particular object or idea that is his diety, but he must also sell the judgment that this object or idea is worthy of worship; that it is, in fact, a god in sense (2), and most likely, also in sense (3).
With the weak atheist, the theist has additional questions to answer. He has to first define what he means by god - the weak theist has little use for this term, and may or may not have a definition in mind. He also must defend why he uses the term in this way.
Consider this analogy: let’s call someone who does not believe in unicorns an a-unicornist. If someone wants to convince him that unicorns exist, he’s first going to have to explain what he means by a unicorn – specifically, they must agree, for instance, that a horse with a horn taped to his forehead is not going to count, and “the idea of a unicorn†is not going to count as “a unicornâ€. If they can not agree on what would constitute a unicorn, then there is little surprise that one might maintain that they exist while another might say they don’t; nothing has been demonstrated to the a-unicornist, even though the unicornist might feel he has demonstrated something.
To the a-unicornist, he might also need to address issues like: why should I take this idea seriously? Is there evidence for the existence of unicorns? Is there a reason to take this idea seriously, or more seriously, than the existence of yeti, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, etc.? In short, why is this particular question worthy of being considered?
If the unicornist does not believe in leprechauns, etc., what is special about unicorns that makes them different from those other mythological beings? Is there some evidence for unicorns that is more credible than the evidence for leprechauns, etc.?
To the weak atheist, the theist must present his idea of god against the universe of all gods one could possibly consider.
(*)However, I think that strong atheists might accept the proposition that gods in sense (1) exist: there are things or ideas that people worship. I think a strong atheist could also, theoretically, reject that position, claiming that any such idea is necessarily self-contradictory and does not constitute a “thing†or is not a coherent idea.
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
-
Leyla Shen
- Posts: 3851
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
- Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
"AHEM" LOGIC
Scott wrote:
Wow.
From this, what you are saying is that open-mindedness is laughing in the face of…ahem…logic whilst being open to the existence of a supreme, creator being all because strange things happen.
Have you ever thought that maybe things wouldn’t be so strange if you weren’t so “open minded�
.
So, you’re prepared to keep an open mind for the belief in the Christian God because strange things happen that can be best explained by: therefore, the Christian God exists. BUT, you are not prepared to have faith in logic because you think the actual arguments against the Christian God are of a similar calibre to the “argument†that allows you to be “open minded�Not really a good sentence, but yes that's it. I didn't say I believe in God, I said I keep an open mind to the possibility. I'm not so deluded as to think I can know the truth of the matter simply by using...ahem..."logic" (Christians tend to be stupid, therefore God doesn't exist), or by making an "educated" (haha!) guess (I don't see God, therefore he doesn't exist!).
Wow.
From this, what you are saying is that open-mindedness is laughing in the face of…ahem…logic whilst being open to the existence of a supreme, creator being all because strange things happen.
Have you ever thought that maybe things wouldn’t be so strange if you weren’t so “open minded�
.
Leyla,
Besides that, I can't even comprehend what you're writing. Stop trying to sound so smart and make sense.
You know, I haven't actually said specifically what "strange things" I am referring to. It'd be pretty dumb of you to think the strange things I'm talking about have to do with being rational or irrational. The things I'm talking about are empirical in nature....like if I wish for money and I get it unexpectedly. Except that's not even a good example.
Do I actually seem irrational to you, Leyla? I go about my day and experience no delusion, and my logic is flawless...so I don't understand these baseless attacks.
All I have said is that God might exist. Somehow you've taken that to mean I am a blind believer. All I've spoken against is blind unbelievers. Is that so irrational?
Have I proclaimed: therefore, the Christian God exists? No. Don't put words in my mouth.So, you’re prepared to keep an open mind for the belief in the Christian God because strange things happen that can be best explained by: therefore, the Christian God exists.
Did I say I have no faith in logic? Notice that I quoted logic, meaning the argument in parentheses wasn't the proper use of logic.BUT, you are not prepared to have faith in logic because you think the actual arguments against the Christian God are of a similar calibre to the “argument†that allows you to be “open minded�
Besides that, I can't even comprehend what you're writing. Stop trying to sound so smart and make sense.
I don't see why "smart" people are shocked when someone says God possibly exists. Or perhaps you're just shocked at your misunderstanding of what I wrote?Wow.
No, open mindedness is the proper demonstration of logic.From this, what you are saying is that open-mindedness is laughing in the face of…ahem…logic
...whilst being open to the existence of a supreme, creator being all because strange things happen.
Have you ever thought?Have you ever thought that maybe things wouldn’t be so strange if you weren’t so “open minded�
You know, I haven't actually said specifically what "strange things" I am referring to. It'd be pretty dumb of you to think the strange things I'm talking about have to do with being rational or irrational. The things I'm talking about are empirical in nature....like if I wish for money and I get it unexpectedly. Except that's not even a good example.
Do I actually seem irrational to you, Leyla? I go about my day and experience no delusion, and my logic is flawless...so I don't understand these baseless attacks.
All I have said is that God might exist. Somehow you've taken that to mean I am a blind believer. All I've spoken against is blind unbelievers. Is that so irrational?
- Scott