How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[snex]

Yes, the entire idea of science is that through repeated observations we approach the truth. This assumption is a leap of faith.

um, no. it is not. its amazing how you can ignore everything ive said so far and just repeat your original assertion. it is not a leap of faith because it DOES NOT ASSUME that we ever have truth. if EVERYTHING about science stopped working tomorrow, we would simply figure out how the new reality worked.

You are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

i.e:

All scientists are anti-semitic, because the nazis used science.

taking a quote from its full context is dishonest. but then thats all i ever expect to get from theists.

Ok, and if someone who believes in God finds evidence tomorrow against the existence of God, he can stop believing in him. Just like there is no need for you to believe the universe is lying to you, a Christian has no need to believe that God doesn't exist.

a christian has no reason to think that god exists in the first place. since no gods are observed, leaping to the belief that one exists is unjustified.

The problem is that you are treating God as a hypothesis, while Christians treat him as an axiom.

something that is not observed cannot ever be an axiom. i already discussed this earlier, but apparently you forgot. or you are just dishonestly repeating yourself hoping nobody will notice.

...and, in doing so, makes the leap of faith that experience can lead to truth.

no, it does not. no faith is ever required, and repeatedly lying and saying it is does not help your case.

By hiding, I obviously don't mean the duck and cover variety.

it doesnt matter how you mean it. an omnipotent being cannot ever fail in any endeavor it engages in. so if any omnipotent god exists and wants a relationship with us, atheists simply cannot exist. the existence of atheists disproves this god immediately.

If a person you thought of as a friend suddenly came up to you and, for no reason, demanded proof that you were his friend, you'd probably tell him to sod off. In friendship, you have to meet a person halfway; if, for every new person you meet, you don't show any signs of friendship and instead demand proof that HE is your friend, you will never make any friends.

Similarly, if a scientist demands proof of God before he makes a leap of faith, then God has no reason to show himself. This is not deception, it is reciprocity. You have to meet God halfway.

no, its deception. god created us with brains that were smart enough to know that leaps of faith simply do not lead to correct knowledge. and since god is the omnipotent and benevolent one here, he is obligated to be the first one to show himself, not us.

 

[ComradeSAL]

lol, whoever said I was a theist? I already said in the post that started all this, but I guess I'll have to repeat myself. I am an agnostic, stepping in for the Christians because they suck at rational debate (and everything, really). You don't have to believe in an issue to debate for it.

PS: You're a liar, but then that's all I ever expect to get from a two-time olympic gold medalist figure skater.

The truth is that we both are repeating ourselves, most likely due to differing definitions of science. I understand your argument: you are saying that we do not need to believe that science is productive to conduct it. It's just that to me this is clearly absurd. It would be like worshiping a god you didn't believe in.

that isnt a counter-argument at all. requiring faith to believe something IS deception. why else do you think every single con artist in existence uses the same exact claim?

You are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

i.e:

All scientists are anti-semitic, because the nazis used science.

 

[cF=)]

Ergo, science assumes that the scientific method leads to knowledge, i.e. truth. This isn't brain surgery.

HE JUST SAID KNOWLEDGE =! TRUTH, ARE YOU BLIND OR WHAT?

You're like a duke v2.0, even with facts to the face, you deny and keep on repeating the same junk until it grows old. Go back to snex's post until you grasp something out of it. Science can't take his observations for granted because it wouldn't stand having contradictory evidence. By keeping ourselves sceptical to a certain degree, we aren't afraid to challenge and adapt our theories over time.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Knowledge != truth? Are you serious? Are you seriously serious?

Main Entry: knowl·edge
Function: noun

the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

Main Entry: know
Function: verb

to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of

Don't get mad at me just because I carry the standard definition of the term.

 

[cF=)]

Well then, you're ignorant about how science works. Debating things you have no clue about?

The proof of our experience lies inside the boundary of science, we have nothing outside science to test the veracity of what science gives us, but science is based on observations (and the world isn't lying to us, we have no logical reason to think so because an experience repeated n times will always give the same results, see constancy).

Nowhere is it contradictory, but we can't be ASSURED of the truth, we just approach it to a higher level than religions when they imagine (a theory, for scientific needs, should have evidences) a framework for the universe.

 

[snex]

according to a strict philosophical definition of "knowledge," science does not generate knowledge. but according to the colloquial definition we all use, it does. so you are making an equivocation fallacy.

"knowledge" according to philosophers is justified true belief. science generates justified belief, but we have no way of knowing that it generates true belief. all we can say is that so far, the predictions made by science-generated beliefs have been successful to a greater degree than chance alone would expect, and that no other types of beliefs have ever surpassed chance alone.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Well then, you're ignorant about how science works. Debating things you have no clue about?

Where did you get that idea? Because I think that knowledge has to be true to be knowledge? Any basic philosophy 101 course defines knowledge as justified, true, belief. What you are saying is that knowledge merely has to be justified and believed, which is an incomplete definition. If you're not even willing to cede such a minor point then there's really not much motivation for me to continue to address your posts.

EDIT: Snex, I'm not ignoring your post; I just don't have any time to respond to your points. I'll try to get to them later today.

 

[cF=)]

What you are saying is that knowledge merely has to be justified and believed

MERELY? THE EXPERIMENTS GIVE THE JUSTIFICATION.

Dude, you're going down in my book as a unicellular prick.

 

[straight8]

MERELY? THE EXPERIMENTS GIVE THE JUSTIFICATION.

Dude, you're going down in my book as a unicellular prick.

Do you have some book where you say everybody sucks? you called me a troll, and I still don't know what that means.

What if I don't believe the experiments? What if the world isn't real?
Snex, you are saying you have faith that science is real and produces truth. But you see christians and nature and the universe and you are skeptical about God? Or if you believe in God, why are you debating about truth?

And comrtade Sal, you are messed up. Christians don't suck at everything. I'm probably better than you at everything. Jk, I don't know you, but I know you aren't cool. If you aren't christian and just want to be annoying, don't debate on this side. And go away, because you don't make any sense. Seriously, I've read your posts, and I have no clue why you are so obsessed with giving dictionary defintions of knowledge.

Comrade SAL again:
So philosophy creates the definition of knowledge? How do you mean justified? what is the standard for justification? Stop talking about something you don't know about. There isn't a standard for justification of anything, so you can't say truth is justified belief, because then truth could be true for one and false for the other, and that contradicts the first law of logic: if something is true, it must be true. Unless you think logic is flawed, and by what do you make tat assumption?

Don't be stupid. Christians are good at things. Hasty generalaztion? or stupid, idiotic statement? Whichever, you should be ashamed of yourself, you are terrible at debating..

 

[ComradeSAL]

according to a strict philosophical definition of "knowledge," science does not generate knowledge. but according to the colloquial definition we all use, it does. so you are making an equivocation fallacy.

"knowledge" according to philosophers is justified true belief. science generates justified belief, but we have no way of knowing that it generates true belief. all we can say is that so far, the predictions made by science-generated beliefs have been successful to a greater degree than chance alone would expect, and that no other types of beliefs have ever surpassed chance alone.

Argument 1:

We are having a philosophical discussion, and thus we should use the philosophical definitions of the terms we are using - not the colloquial ones. But if you insist that science was never meant to obtain philosophical knowledge, then science necessarily cannot be used to make philosophical claims.

Argument 2:

What we are trying to do is weigh the merits of theism and atheism. You are saying that theism is the inferior outlook because theism cannot readily be used to make predictions about the observable world.

The problem with this criteria is that neither theism nor atheism is making a statement about the observable world.

 

[RDK]

Do you have some book where you say everybody sucks? you called me a troll, and I still don't know what that means.

What if I don't believe the experiments? What if the world isn't real?
Snex, you are saying you have faith that science is real and produces truth. But you see christians and nature and the universe and you are skeptical about God? Or if you believe in God, why are you debating about truth?

And comrtade Sal, you are messed up. Christians don't suck at everything. I'm probably better than you at everything. Jk, I don't know you, but I know you aren't cool. If you aren't christian and just want to be annoying, don't debate on this side. And go away, because you don't make any sense. Seriously, I've read your posts, and I have no clue why you are so obsessed with giving dictionary defintions of knowledge.

Comrade SAL again:
So philosophy creates the definition of knowledge? How do you mean justified? what is the standard for justification? Stop talking about something you don't know about. There isn't a standard for justification of anything, so you can't say truth is justified belief, because then truth could be true for one and false for the other, and that contradicts the first law of logic: if something is true, it must be true. Unless you think logic is flawed, and by what do you make tat assumption?

Don't be stupid. Christians are good at things. Hasty generalaztion? or stupid, idiotic statement? Whichever, you should be ashamed of yourself, you are terrible at debating..

He's not the one slinging around faith-based arguments like they're fact.

 

[snex]

Snex, you are saying you have faith that science is real and produces truth.

how can you POSSIBLY get that from anything ive said. IVE BEEN SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN EVERY POST! this can only come from dishonesty.

We are having a philosophical discussion, and thus we should use the philosophical definitions of the terms we are using - not the colloquial ones. But if you insist that science was never meant to obtain philosophical knowledge, then science necessarily cannot be used to make philosophical claims.

and science doesnt make philosophical claims. science maintains a list of actions, their results, and the probability of those results so far. if those actions stop producing those results at those probabilities, we change the list.

What we are trying to do is weigh the merits of theism and atheism. You are saying that theism is the inferior outlook because theism cannot readily be used to make predictions about the observable world.

The problem with this criteria is that neither theism nor atheism is making a statement about the observable world.

atheism is the null hypothesis - it doesnt make any statements about the observable world. theism is adding an additional hypothesis about the way the world is, and therefore is required to provide a case for that hypothesis.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@Straigh8: It was a joke. A joke at your expense.

and science doesnt make philosophical claims. science maintains a list of actions, their results, and the probability of those results so far. if those actions stop producing those results at those probabilities, we change the list.

OK, now we're getting somewhere (I do have one question: could you clarify what you mean by probabilities in this context?). However, if you assert this, then the next quote doesn't make sense.

atheism is the null hypothesis - it doesnt make any statements about the observable world. theism is adding an additional hypothesis about the way the world is, and therefore is required to provide a case for that hypothesis.

"Null hypothesis" is a clear ear mark that you are still using the scientific method when evaluating theistic belief systems.

 

[snex]

OK, now we're getting somewhere (I do have one question: could you clarify what you mean by probabilities in this context?). However, if you assert this, then the next quote doesn't make sense.

i drop a ball and measure how long it takes to hit the ground. its not going to give the same exact result every time. there are going to be error bars. those error bars are an expression of probabilities.

"Null hypothesis" is a clear ear mark that you are still using the scientific method when evaluating theistic belief systems.

there is no other known method to evaluate beliefs that succeeds greater than chance. show us one.

 

[ComradeSAL]

i drop a ball and measure how long it takes to hit the ground. its not going to give the same exact result every time. there are going to be error bars. those error bars are an expression of probabilities.

OK, fair enough. I asked the question because it becomes tricky to define probability when you do not assume underlying truth (most of the time probability deals with deviations around a "true" value). But if you define probability as, "the number of times I can expect the value to be X assuming I repeat the experiment many times" then everything checks out.

there is no other known method to evaluate beliefs that succeeds greater than chance. show us one.

I could show you any method of evaluating philosophical beliefs, and they would be just as good or better. We have already established that science cannot be used to make philosophical claims, and the dismissal of theism is a philosophical claim. You are trying to disassemble a car with a bottle opener.

 

[snex]

I could show you any method of evaluating philosophical beliefs, and they would be just as good or better. We have already established that science cannot be used to make philosophical claims, and the dismissal of theism is a philosophical claim. You are trying to disassemble a car with a bottle opener.

the dismissal of theism is not a philosophical claim. this is the bait and switch theologians try to pull every time their god fails to show up when theyve predicted him to. if any gods exist, they exist in the same way that rubber balls or gravity exist. in other words, they must have some sort of effect on the other things that exist. if we cant observe the gods, then we must be able to observe their effects. but nothing is ever observed! when it comes to any other hypothesis, we take this to mean that the hypothesis is falsified. but when it comes to gods, believers just try to backpedal and change everything. this is equivocation and special pleading.

 

[ComradeSAL]

"if any gods exist, they exist in the same way that rubber balls or gravity exist. in other words, they must have some sort of effect on the other things that exist."

You are saying that you are not making a philosophical claim by making more philosophical claims.

 

[snex]

no, im saying that "existence" has to have some agreed-upon meaning for us to discuss it. if some hypothetical object has no effect on anything, then it doesnt exist. existence is based on interactions between objects, it isnt some inherent, first-order property of objects. if you think otherwise, offer a coherent definition.

 

[ComradeSAL]

You are saying more than, "If something has no effect on anything else, it doesn't exist." You are saying, "If something has no observable effect on anyone else, it doesn't exist." This is a much stronger philosophical claim, and is another clear earmark of the scientific method.

I would agree with the first definition on a common-sense basis.

 

[snex]

no, thats not what im saying. im saying that if something has no observable effect on anything, then non-belief is the only justifiable, and intellectually honest, position that can be taken about that thing.

 

[ComradeSAL]

no, thats not what im saying. im saying that if something has no observable effect on anything, then non-belief is the only justifiable, and intellectually honest, position that can be taken about that thing.

OK, but your beliefs on responsible belief are in turn a product of the scientific method.

You're going to get angry at me for repeating myself ad infinitum again, but this is what I do when I don't see how you have refuted my original statement: if science cannot be used to make philosophical claims, then there is almost nothing you can say about anything. You can only say stuff like, "If I observe A, I observe B with X probability." You can't even say that A causes B, unless you define causation to be some weird empirical bullcrap. And you certainly can't use science to make value statements on belief systems.

 

[Zero Beat]

Explain why it's wrong for me to worship Set, but right for you to worship Jehoba.(Or whatever god's name is)

 

[ComradeSAL]

Explain why it's wrong for me to worship Set, but right for you to worship Jehoba.(Or whatever god's name is)

What? I'm sorry, I really don't understand your argument, or even if it's directed at me.

 

[Zero Beat]

What? I'm sorry, I really don't understand your argument, or even if it's directed at me.

How can you not? I don't know if you suffer from cognitive dissonance, but why is this thread still going? Inane, inane.

For the sake of ending this crap...

I find a fairly reasonable argument in favor of atheism to be "Look, almost everyone knows that, if you'd be born in a different place or in a different time, you would have been a muslim or a buddhist or a jew or a hindu. Is it really worth believing something you only believe because of accident of birth? Do you really believe you were so lucky to be born into a family with the truth, or do you think your parents' religion might not actually be substantially more or less truthful because they're your parents, than mine?"

 

[snex]

if science cannot be used to make philosophical claims, then there is almost nothing you can say about anything. You can only say stuff like, "If I observe A, I observe B with X probability." You can't even say that A causes B, unless you define causation to be some weird empirical bullcrap.

causation is nothing more than a high probability combined with the absence of other tested effects. this is why scientific experiments require control groups.

And you certainly can't use science to make value statements on belief systems.

and nobody does. you keep asserting that beliefs about gods are somehow different than beliefs about the pattern a ball will take when you drop it, but neither you nor anybody else can explain why this would be. and dont think professional theologians havent tried. the reason you cant do it is because it cant be done. its just an intellectually dishonest effort invented to maintain an hypothesis that was disproven ages ago.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@xZero Beatx:

1. You are not going to end this debate with one paragraph. Theists have been trying to end this debate for hundreds of years and you can see where that got them.

2. If you had actually read my posts instead of just assuming I had a certain opinion, you'd know that I'm an agnostic arguing for the possible existence of A god. I have never said anywhere that the Christian god is the correct one. That's why I was confused by your first post; it carries no relevance whatsoever to anything that I've said.

3. Your argument is arguing for agnosticism, not atheism.

4. All internet arguments are pointless. Some are interesting. If you don't find this discussion interesting then there is no reason for you to be participating.

@snex:

causation is nothing more than a high probability combined with the absence of other tested effects. this is why scientific experiments require control groups.

Haha, like I said, weird empirical bullcrap. But yes there's nothing wrong with this definition so long as you also redefine all statements to be about observation and not absolute truth. So, if you define "God does not exist" as "we do not observe God," then God does not exist. But only radical empiricists would actually believe that the two statements are equivalent.

and nobody does. you keep asserting that beliefs about gods are somehow different than beliefs about the pattern a ball will take when you drop it, but neither you nor anybody else can explain why this would be. and dont think professional theologians havent tried. the reason you cant do it is because it cant be done. its just an intellectually dishonest effort invented to maintain an hypothesis that was disproven ages ago.

Why should I have to prove God's existence acts differently than a physical object? It is enough to say that you can't prove it acts the same.

 

[snex]

So, if you define "God does not exist" as "we do not observe God," then God does not exist. But only radical empiricists would actually believe that the two statements are equivalent.

you must really love ascribing claims and arguments to me that ive never made. of course, dishonesty is the only possible result of one arguing for theism.

Why should I have to prove God's existence acts differently than a physical object? It is enough to say that you can't prove it acts the same.

because the second you say "god exists," you are asserting that god has at least one first-order property in common with all other physical objects. and remember, "existence" is not a first-order property. so now you must identify that property and demonstrate that god does indeed have it. if you cant, your claim of "god exists" is not justified.

 

[ComradeSAL]

because the second you say "god exists," you are asserting that god has at least one first-order property in common with all other physical objects. and remember, "existence" is not a first-order property. so now you must identify that property and demonstrate that god does indeed have it. if you cant, your claim of "god exists" is not justified.

We're going in circles again. There are as many different definitions for justification as there are scrubs on SWF, and the definition of justification that you're using happens to be from the scientific method.

The most insidious earmark of science that you keep repeating ad infinitum is that non-existence is assumed until existence is proven. There is nothing in the basic laws of logic to indicate that this is true. In terms of basic logic, "God does not exist" needs as much justification as "God exists."

Existence holds no special property by itself; without science (and, more specifically, Occam's Razor), you might as well be saying "since there is no evidence that the cat is black, we will assume it is white until proof is shown to the contrary."

 

[snex]

The most insidious earmark of science that you keep repeating ad infinitum is that non-existence is assumed until existence is proven. There is nothing in the basic laws of logic to indicate that this is true. In terms of basic logic, "God does not exist" needs as much justification as "God exists."

Existence holds no special property by itself; without science (and, more specifically, Occam's Razor), you might as well be saying "since there is no evidence that the cat is black, we will assume it is white until proof is shown to the contrary."

and once again you repeat the same old LIE about the atheist position. can you stop lying about what atheism is?

 

[Deleted member]

Snex, atheism is a logical fallacy. It is only a theory and saying that it is simply a lack of belief is still a belief in itself.

 

[snex]

Snex, atheism is a logical fallacy. It is only a theory and saying that it is simply a lack of belief is still a belief in itself.

what the HELL are you talking about??

 

[Deleted member]

The same thing I've said every night, Pinky.

Or do you really forget when I proved to you that your reasoning was based from a fallacious standpoint?

 

[Zero Beat]

Snex, atheism is a logical fallacy. It is only a theory and saying that it is simply a lack of belief is still a belief in itself.

Snex is talking about lack of belief in deities.(It seems)

Perhaps you misunderstood him.

 

[Deleted member]

.......I didn't.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Snex:

First: no need to get angry. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I'm just discussing this for the sake of better realizing my own epistemological views.

Second: Explain to me how this statement is different from my "lies" about atheism.

"atheism is the null hypothesis - it doesnt make any statements about the observable world. theism is adding an additional hypothesis about the way the world is, and therefore is required to provide a case for that hypothesis."

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Snex, atheism is a logical fallacy. It is only a theory and saying that it is simply a lack of belief is still a belief in itself.

If atheism is a theory, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[Surri-Sama]

This "argument" (which is what it is) sparked an actual debate between a few of my friends and I. When I seen how bias most of the information is I wanted to take it else where, and this is what me and my friends came up with, your allowed to disagree I just wanted to really get a "strong opinion" about all this

Before I start I want to say a few things, to make things clear.

No matter what your religion or what you believe 99% of people can agree with these statements

"Time did start, it does exist, and it will end"
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Now some Christians may say "God can indeed create something from nothing" but from the bible and the heart of Christians God is ALL POWERFUL meaning there is no need for a creation process, God has the state of being where "I think there fore I am" which is ultimate power, being able to create something from your mind and nothing else.

With this being said we are all eternally bonded to God by the fact, we came from him, thus something of him must be inside of us, may it be, physically or spiritually we all must have something of God. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" (God is a master Chemist)

Now being all powerful and limitless, there is no way anything could ever exhaust God.
My friend used this example, "Have you ever seen a drop of water? Have you ever seen a huge body of water? now try this, take a drop of water from a huge body of water, put it back into the body, then try to reclaim it" This is obviously impossibly as Waters appearance is not based of mass, Water is water, limitless in Physical shape, now because of Gods limitlessness he would be the same.

This is where all our ideas came together and formed this, "If we each have god inside of us, and we are each evolving at our own speed (as slow or fast as it maybe) our minds are getting sharper and our ability to do "things" (anything) in general are getting better, we would have to come to a point, where we can use the bit of God that’s inside of us (remember Gods power is like water, limitless, but unlike water is also never ending) so if any one person ever did manage it (even that fact that its possible. .Well...) wouldn’t there be...Two gods? (Or at least the possibulity of two gods)

All in all this is a very weird and complicated bit of writing, and I am not going to say which side I have taken, nor will I come out and say what the ending of what I said means, because to those whom it matter, they already know

 

[cF=)]

The most insidious earmark of science that you keep repeating ad infinitum is that non-existence is assumed until existence is proven. There is nothing in the basic laws of logic to indicate that this is true. In terms of basic logic, "God does not exist" needs as much justification as "God exists."

No it's not, and this is where you make a mistake. If the burden of proof's on our side, we could debate endlessly if I had an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Can you disprove this claim?

"Time did start, it does exist, and it will end"

I don't think so, Tim.

 

[ComradeSAL]

No it's not, and this is where you make a mistake. If the burden of proof's on our side, we could debate endlessly if I had an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Can you disprove this claim?

Nope, I can't unless I assume that science can be used to make philosophical claims, i.e. science generates justified, true, belief.

If you do not assume anything, then there is very little you can say about the universe. As such, you have two options: you can remain a global skeptic, or you can make an assumption.

That assumption can be:

- God
- Science leads to truth
- Invisible Pink Unicorn
- Other stuff

Then, using this assumption, you can build a world view. The question, then, is which assumption makes the most intuitive sense (i.e. which one you like the most). For me, I assume science.

 

[Deleted member]

If atheism is a theory, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I hardly call them comparable. Talk about a failure of an analogy.

A much better one would be the way Martin Luther King Jr and Socrates differed from rectifying unjust laws.

On the one hand, King took action. He organized movements and revolutions that would change racial equality forever.

On the other, when Socrates was either condemned to death or intellectual castration, he did nothing to fight for his cause. He accepted the hemlock because he knew his life would be virtueless if he could no longer practice philosophy. This inaction sparked inspiration and made people see Socrates as a martyr.

Martin Luther staged sit-ins. Socrates did nothing. Both sat down for their cause, but only one took action. However, boths methods of fighting injustice are still actions. Inaction can still be an action.

Do you see what I'm saying? When looking at something like views on God, which is a topic that has absolutely no evidence that decisively proves either side, both NEED to be considered as theories. If they aren't, then we have a debate that is one-sided, and that's how it usually ends up. And really, it's pathetic. How come we don't have a thread that is called, "How Can Anyone NOT Believe in God?"?

When you realize that your lack of belief is still a belief, or a GUESS at how the world was created, we can have a debate. But for now, there are too many stubborn atheists and too many ignorant theists. It's really sad.

Both sides should really be ashamed.