No such thing as God.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

It might be useful to this discussion to avoid the distinction between atheist and agnostic completely, since the lines between the two are often unclear, and substitute a more generic term such as non-theists however awkward this might be initially. Its use would also lend itself to avoiding the use of misleading words such as "faith" or "belief" in favour of "holding a position." Wouldn't this approach allow a concentration on the arguments themselves rather than a casual dismissal by classification in the spirit of philosophical dialogue?

It would, if we could stick to arguments for or against. But I fear we can't - inevitably they digress. Here's why...

In any such discussion, the words "faith" and "belief" are absolutely essential. This is just so because of one undeniable fact: No one here knows that such diety cannot exist, unless they know all things everywhere in all phenomina for all aspects of the cosmos. This precludes any support for "there is not" on that side of the fence. So if for the non-believers, it's not about "knowledge that there isn't" and we then exclude statements of faith and belief as you suggest, what's left?

Could we purely stick to the arguments for or against? I think the nature of the issue precludes this. I would; however, love to see a list of such arguments, were such a thing possible within the realm of human interaction.

As a side note, if my clarification on terms already used here (and in some measure of seeming confusion) represents an unwarranted digression from the topic at hand, all please accept my apology. I generally do more reading here than writing and strive to only interject when I feel very compelled to.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Quote:

That's all well and good, DT, but if an atheist says he does not believe in the existence of God, no matter what particular attributes you ascribe to God, then why can't we just leave it at that? I mean, do you really think there is any manner in which you can describe God that an atheist will accept? That is without eliminating the word God, and therefore the concept of God, altogether from the equation, in which case you wouldn't be talking about God at all.

To the first question, sure we can leave it there.

To the second, probably not, though I would like to think that people are open minded and at least the possibility exists. But the point is that even if the atheist rejects God, the atheist would have to accept that the concept of God is derived from some where. Many atheists use this as an argument against God, trying to point out the sources of the concept to prove that God does not exist.

Khetil - What sort of arguments would they be? The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, and the theist cannot prove that God does exist. I'm not sure arguments either way can be productive. A discussion of views might help people to better understand other perspectives, and as a result, help people experience for themselves what the theist and atheist argue for and against.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Heyya Didymos

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Khetil - What sort of arguments would they be? The atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, and the theist cannot prove that God does exist. I'm not sure arguments either way can be productive.

I couldn't agree more and this is precisely my point. If the logic holds that this is all more about belief and/or faith, as I think it does, then "arguments" per say either dont' exist, or take on the tenor of a discussion of view-sharing.

As to what arguments those might be, I've no idea - that sentiment came from the last sentence Jgweed's Post here I believe (as I was answering to him).

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Quote:

I couldn't agree more and this is precisely my point. If the logic holds that this is all more about belief and/or faith, as I think it does, then "arguments" per say either dont' exist, or take on the tenor of a discussion of view-sharing.

I'm not so sure the subject is merely a matter of faith/belief, I also think experience plays an important role. Can we deny a mystic experience simply because we have not had one? Certainly we cannot confirm them, but denying them seems equally impossible. Though, even if we add experience to our little list, logic proofs are still impotent, and the topic is limited to an open-minded discussion of views.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

Many atheists use this as an argument against God, trying to point out the sources of the concept to prove that God does not exist.

It makes no more sense for an atheist to do that than for a theist to use the ontological argument. Some individuals on both sides of the discussion are guilty of the same crime then.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Hey ya,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not so sure the subject is merely a matter of faith/belief, I also think experience plays an important role.

To be sure! Maybe experiences discussed (in terms of support for such notions) is a good place to start. I do believe this is ultimately an issue of faith/belief but am ready - ears perked and mind open with a leash on the ego - to consider all possibilities! For support, assertion or just sharing. Yee yaw, let's do it.

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Can we deny a mystic experience simply because we have not had one?

Absolutely not! I think discussing mystic experiences is a capital place to go together. It almost seems you've answered the question: "What sort of arguments would they be?" - or rather, at least potentially.

Cheers

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I mean c'mon, we can completely explain everything in the universe right now...

When did that happen?

1 Reply

@John W Kelly,

While we're talking about experience as a reason to believe something... Would you think that "miracles", or unexplainable (naturally) events, could be of similar value as mystical experiences? They can't really be scientifically quantified or repeated, but they certainly can be a strong personal reason to believe. I shared just one story like that here, though I write quite a few more that have impacted me over the years.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Khetil - Yeah, some of the questions were more rhetorical than anything else. It's impossible to deny a religious experience, unless we have some evidence that the individual was under the influence of some intoxicant (and even then, the argument denying the experience is shaky, ie, Native American use of mescaline in religious ritual).

I think for most people, it is an issue of faith/belief. Personally, I find this unfortunate. Not because I have anything against faith/belief, but I have to admit, I'm an empiricist. See for yourself, then have faith - you've earned it.

Quote:

While we're talking about experience as a reason to believe something... Would you think that "miracles", or unexplainable (naturally) events, could be of similar value as mystical experiences? They can't really be scientifically quantified or repeated, but they certainly can be a strong personal reason to believe. I shared just one story like that here, though I write quite a few more that have impacted me over the years.

I do not think there are naturally unexplainable events. If I see one, I'll make the conversion, until then, I have to doubt.

No offense, but I think Aedes was convincing in the thread you give a link to in establishing the fact that the event was not a miracle; or at least any more of a miracle than anything else in this life. That's what miracles are to me - the fact that we're even here, in this life. What a trip!

2 Replies

@boagie,

Boagie, you rock.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Good stuff!

A couple of side notes if I may:[INDENT]1. It may 'feel' like a concession to say "it's about belief, not knowledge" but its not. Until such time as there is enough wide-spread evidence of both a rationale and empirical/experiential nature (i.e., a god appears and makes themselves known to all in a manner virtually-undeniable to anyone on this planet) then it stands to follow that if we are to communicate, it must remain at the "faith" level.
[/INDENT][INDENT]2. Further, consigning the issue to belief strikes me as logical, prudent, productive and semantically-consistent:
[/INDENT][INDENT]

Logical because of the arguments involved. The atheist cannot prove there isn't and the theist has the nearly-impossible job of "objectively-proving" there is. This puts both parties into a perpetual loop; a place lacking a logical basis.

Prudent because of the volatility of the issue. Claiming absolute-knowledge on either side will nearly-always evoke an unwise result in a debate/discussion involving folks of opposing views.

[/INDENT][INDENT]

Productive because the words "belief" and "faith" allow others to have (and freely state) their assertions in an tone that encourages free expression by "allowing" others to have and hold theirs.

Semantically Consistent: We have but words; and the medium by which we mutually agree on what those words mean is The Dictionary. Now, I realize that intonations and implications of words often play a higher role than their definitions, but we need some common ground on meaning, yes? If we'll take reputable dictionary definitions then the theist believes there is, the atheist believes there is not and the agnostic makes no claim to belief on either side.

[/INDENT]Possibly a thread on "Theists Evidence and Experiences - reasons to Believe" might be in order?

Cheers!

-----

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;26675 wrote:

I do not think there are naturally unexplainable events. If I see one, I'll make the conversion, until then, I have to doubt.

Fair enough. But, if a person feels that they have seen such an event, then it is only logical that they would have to take it into account. Smile

Didymos Thomas;26675 wrote:

No offense, but I think Aedes was convincing in the thread you give a link to in establishing the fact that the event was not a miracle; or at least any more of a miracle than anything else in this life. That's what miracles are to me - the fact that we're even here, in this life. What a trip!

No offense taken. Smile

Conclusions on these matters have a whole lot to do with a person's pre-existing expectations, especially when the matters are discussed second or third hand. That said, I have to disagree that there is anyway that someone can, or has, established the fact that that particular event (let alone the countless other examples) was not a miracle. That's a world-view assumption, not any sort of established fact. It very much violated the normal way we would expect the situation to go. For people who are willing to believe that miracles could happen, the best explanation might be that something other than "normal nature" intervened. Those who believe a miracle couldn't happen won't be convinced. And we can see this play out... You and Aedes can't give any rational explanation, just a bit of a shoulder shrug that only shows that miracles don't fit your world-view. But, my basic point is that if a person is open to such things, I think that events like that are reasons to believe. They don't equal complete knowledge by any stretch, but they are understandable reasons.

If you're willing to take another story just on my word, I can give us another example to work with... That same grandpa later on moved to Brazil as a missionary. A few weeks after moving into the small town a father asked him to pray for his son to be healed. The boy was bed-ridden, had a large lump on his thigh and a burning fever. He had been to see many doctors (granted this was a while ago in rural Brazil), who had not been able to help at all. So he prayed for him and went home. The next day the boy rode up on a horse smiling and completely healthy, both legs the same size, and told him that his God had healed him.

Now, I am the first to say that this story is not science and is not "proof" in any formal sense. (Please, don't argue with me by acting like I claimed scientific proof!! That's what I got last time even though I was clear about that in the first place.) On the other hand, if you have a decent medical explanation for that event, that would be a good argument for saying that it wasn't a "miracle". Other than that, interpretation is going to come down to what your world-view allows. So I don't expect you to believe that was a miracle. You can give it a shoulder shrug, or not believe it in the first place, or give a legitimate medical alternative. That's fine. What I am saying is that such events can be substantial reason for belief among those who would be looking for or open to such "evidence".

(If you're interested, Aedes and I rehashed a bit of this in this thread, with my response beginning in post #50. I think it's easy for people who don't believe miracles happen to mix up naturalistic assumptions with a "scientific viewpoint".)

Like I said, no offense taken. I don't expect everyone to believe exactly like I do. I just think that in a place dominated by modern philosophical and skeptical thinking, "real life" belief-oriented experiences like perceived miracles might get disregarded too quickly as legitimate reasons for anyone to believe something. Sure, some people claim miracles everywhere to the point that they loose all credibility, or the word simply becomes meaningless... But that doesn't automatically rule out any possible legitimacy any more than philosophical thinking should be ruled out just because some people have done poor philosophy.

For what it's worth, I don't really expect to change anyone's opinion here. I'd just be happy if I make anyone think a bit about some of their presuppositions that haven't been challenged in a while... Smile

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Khethil: I tend to agree with you that these things are belief oriented rather than knowledge. That said, I'd have a hard time figuring out a definite line between belief and knowledge.:brickwall:

Khethil;26686 wrote:

Possibly a thread on "Theists Evidence and Experiences - reasons to Believe" might be in order?

Sounds nice to me. If someone starts such a thread, especially one not aimed only at deconstruction, I'd be glad to join in.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

The logic behind belief based on miracles baffles me somewhat. Just because someone believes that an event that natural perception cannot explain occurs, they attribute it to a divine cause that natural perception also cannot explain...? Where's the sense in that? Basically they're saying, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to say that something else that I don't understand caused it." It's just adding mystery to mystery, but solving nothing.

2 Replies

@Solace,

Neither, I have to disagree with several points. You are right to say that we disagree, but if we are going to discuss fact, as a matter of fact, the survival of said family member, and even his mission experiences (though I am exceedingly happy to hear the good news of both recoveries), do not defy any natural law. They are not miracles. At the same time, however, I am sympathetic to your cause. It seems to me that all of life, that all of reality, is a miracle. After all, why should there be something rather than nothing? That we have the chance to experience human life is not a miracle in the sense that human life defies natural laws, but a miracle in the sense that human life is precious and allows us a chance to touch the divine, the greater than "I".

0 Replies

@Solace,

Solace;26856 wrote:

The logic behind belief based on miracles baffles me somewhat. Just because someone believes that an event that natural perception cannot explain occurs, they attribute it to a divine cause that natural perception also cannot explain...? Where's the sense in that? Basically they're saying, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to say that something else that I don't understand caused it." It's just adding mystery to mystery, but solving nothing.

Hi Solace. Smile

All fair points above. First, I'd note that nothing we do is pure logic, and that the way we perceive things relates to a whole lot more than just one logical or illogical line of reasoning. But, I think the basic reasoning goes essentially like this: Naturally Inexplicable Event + Possible "Non-natural" Cause (God, spirits, etc.) = Reinforcement of Belief in Possible Cause. It's not a full logical or philosophical proof by any stretch, but it could be a form of reasonable real-life reinforcement IMO. Your opinion may be different though. Such is life...

Didymos Thomas;26876 wrote:

Neither, I have to disagree with several points. You are right to say that we disagree, but if we are going to discuss fact, as a matter of fact, the survival of said family member, and even his mission experiences (though I am exceedingly happy to hear the good news of both recoveries), do not defy any natural law. They are not miracles. At the same time, however, I am sympathetic to your cause. It seems to me that all of life, that all of reality, is a miracle. After all, why should there be something rather than nothing? That we have the chance to experience human life is not a miracle in the sense that human life defies natural laws, but a miracle in the sense that human life is precious and allows us a chance to touch the divine, the greater than "I".

Hi Didymos. First, thanks for taking the effort not to offend. Smile

Don't worry, I brought the up the subject and I won't be offended by skeptical or even cynical views on the subject. Second, I don't intend to force a change in your world-view or to try to corner anyone into admitting that there are "miracles". (That said, if you're interested in any more examples, maybe of non-healing for a change, I'd be willing to share some.)

But, from a more philosophical standpoint, I will argue that your statement that they are not miracles is too strong. You've placed yourself in a similar situation as the strong atheist, who claims that lack of knowledge of existence equals knowledge of non-existence... You don't believe there are miracles, and you were not convinced by the "evidence", but that doesn't prove logically that they weren't miracles. The events are still unexplained, closely tied with prayer and belief, and well outside the range of the "normal" results that we would predict based on experience and understanding. That might not equal "miracle" to you, which is fine. Honestly, at this point I believe they were. But, if I'm going to enter a philosophical discussion on the subject, I need to acknowledge my fallibility and limited knowledge...

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Quote:

But, from a more philosophical standpoint, I will argue that your statement that they are not miracles is too strong. You've placed yourself in a similar situation as the strong atheist, who claims that lack of knowledge of existence equals knowledge of non-existence... You don't believe there are miracles, and you were not convinced by the "evidence", but that doesn't prove logically that they weren't miracles. The events are still unexplained, closely tied with prayer and belief, and well outside the range of the "normal" results that we would predict based on experience and understanding. That might not equal "miracle" to you, which is fine. Honestly, at this point I believe they were. But, if I'm going to enter a philosophical discussion on the subject, I need to acknowledge my fallibility and limited knowledge...

First, there is sheer burden of proof. You say event X was miraculous (defies natural law), and offer event X as evidence. However, event X is insufficient evidence because nowhere in event X was a natural law defied. You assert that the events are unexplained, but this is not the case - the events are unlikely, not without explanation.

Second, the definition of miracle is extremely important here. On the one hand, I might agree that event X was a miracle because I think all of life is a miracle, "something wonderful" miraculum. On the other hand, I might argue that event X is not a miracle because event X can be explained without the intervention of a supernatural being, and can be explained without the modification of natural laws.

Under the second definition, where a miracle is an event that defies natural law, my position is the expected empiricist argument. I do not say that natural law cannot be superseded, only that I've never witnessed such an event, and that event X does not seem to supersede natural law, only commonplace experience. Exceeding common place experience is not a miracle, unless by miracle you mean "something wonderful".

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Hi again Didymos. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree that definition of a "miracle" is important. So to clarify, for this conversation, I would use something like these:

Dictionary.com: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
Websters: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

First, I need to say that I don't really understand your idea behind "defying natural laws" as the qualifier for believing in a miracle... Do you mean levitation or something? You agree that the event simply "exceeded common place experience". But couldn't you say the same thing about just about any imaginable event no mater how impossible or unnatural? The idea behind judging that an event seems to need a cause, based on it being far enough "outside common place experience", is rational, not irrational. We use the idea behind that rationale all the time in judging cause/effect relationships. Of course that doesn't prove that I've applied it correctly in this case, but it leads to my next thoughts...

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to make the strong statement (or force you to believe) that it was a miracle. But, I am suggesting that it could be reasonable for some person (lets say me...) to believe it was. Subtle difference, but important I think, because it shifts the burden of proof dramatically. At this point, for you to convince me that event X could not be considered a miracle, you need to find a reasonable explanation. Does that make sense?

This does not mean that you need to find a reasonable explanation in order for you not to believe it was a miracle! You can even laugh and consider me a confused naive idealist for attributing an unknown to a divine cause if you want to... But, for you to make the strong claim that they were not miracles, and that I can not reasonably believe they were, I think you need to present a more reasonable explanation of the event, which you suggest would be readily available.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Will we ever know whether or not their is a god. By this point we should be intelligent enough that ...... well let me put it to everyone this way. If we assume that god is this all powerful being. And we all of a sudden encounter god, how could we differentiate whether it is god or some other living creature. Maybe we were created by some other intelligent race.

1 Reply

@MITech,

:bigsmile:Some say God created the Angels and they made the material world. Madonna and Isis were in competition; thanks to Nicea Maria won.

I believe in traditions. Religions are one form. Folk is an-other ...

0 Replies

No such thing as God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know