Does there exist a deity?

Frank, The response, "we just don't know" includes most of life's mysteries. It's not limited to gods. It's similar to the question, is there life on other planets? The correct answer is, "we just don't know." Whether there are other life forms on other planets has no meaning to my life. Whether a god exists also has no meaning to my life. Therefore, I do not believe in any gods. If and when man discovers life forms on other planets, that will effect those interested in that pursuit. I will acknowledge it as a new discovery, but beyond that it will have very little meaning to my life. I doubt proof of gods will be discovered by man any time in the future. c.i.

90% of Americans believe in God

67% of Americans believe in the Devil

Results from USA Today poll ( 4/4/03)

NH, At one time in history, 100% of the people thought the world was flat. c.i.

Have things really changed since then?

and before they thought it was flat they had determined that it was round

"What goes around, comes around"!

Something like that! c.i.

Look at that - I go to sleep and now my thread is full ;-)

I must say, I was rather hoping for a good old debate with someone who wanted positively to assert that there did exist a deity, but only agnostics seem to have responded (with the possible exception of the man talking about chemistry and life forces, with whom I shall deal presently).

I suspect that there are more than two types of agnostic; indeed "agnostic" really refers to a person who has no positive belief either way that there exists a deity. Some agnostics have just never really thought about it, whilst some have thought about it and concluded that they personally do not know, and others have thought about it and concluded that no-one can ever know.

Let me be clear now - I am not attempting to deal in certainties. That is a non-existenant currency in any case. And by the way, I do not agree with the person who talks of two definitions of certainty: that would just create unnecessary ambiguity. The phrase "overwhelming probability" suffices for what is forwarded as the second type of "certainty".

Might I be clear from those who have sought to answer the question (and from that I can only assume the question that they are answering is the one in the topic line "Is there a deity?" rather than the more detailed series of questions posed in my first post) with "I don't know", whether your position is:

1. you have never really thought about whether there exists a deity, or if you have thought about it, you haven't thought about it enough to draw any meaningful conclusion at all;

2. you have thought about it as much as you are able, and you cannot personally understand the issues well enough to be able to make any meaningful conclusions, but you cannot comment on whether anyone else is able to make meaningful conclusions;

3. you have thought about it and decided that you can meaningfully conclude that the probability of there existing a deity is exactly 50% (or something very close to 50%);

4. you have thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and that the probability of there existing a deity is significantly lower than 50% but still realistically possible;

5. you have thought about it, decided that you can make meaningful conclusions, and decided that the probability of there existing a deity is infitecimally remote, although you understand that, because of the principle of uncertainty, you cannot be completely certain that there does not exist a deity;

6. you have thought about it and decided that it is conceptually impossible for any sentient being ever to make any meaningful conclusion on the matter ever;

7. other (please specify).

For my part, I am in category 5 above. I should be most interested to hear from anybody in 3-4 or 6-7 as to their basis for thinking that way, and why the conclusion to which you come is more right than the other conclusions.

Now to the poster who talks about the energy in life-forms: there is no scientific riddle as to what happens to the energy contained in living organisms when they die; the process of converting potential chemical energy to kinetic energy that sustains their life ceases. There is no question of energy being destroyed, it just stops being converted from the potential energy held in the various chemicals that the body acquires in order to react together to the kinetic energy that an organism expends in order to continue acquiring more of those chemicals. The energy then either stays in potential form, or is slowly released when the corpse is used as food by other organisms, such as fly lavae or bacteria. There is no basis to conclude that anything "supernatural" is going on.

from the point of view of rational debate i would support the reasoned agnostic, however on my own personal level i am quite simply an atheist, i reject out of hand the possiblity of deity.

For continuity purposes -- this is a re-post of some comments I made in James' other identical thread in the Philosophy Section. I suggest we keep all responses here.





I am??? And why is that???

If that is an example of your logic, perhaps this thread should have been posted in the entertainment section as well.





I am asserting that I do not know if there is a GOD; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction -- and I have never heard anything from any other human being that indicates anyone else on the planet is or has ever been in a more informative position.

I do know there are people who assert they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is more probable there is a GOD; I do know there are people who assert they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is more probable there are no gods.

I have listened carefully and reasonably to the arguments from both these factions and have come away astonished that intelligent people can be deluding themselves that way.



[quote/]What is the probability, from the evidence that is before you, that there exists a deity?[/quote]

Read what I wrote above!

****

I will respond to James' new posting in this thread shortly.

Well, what a silly question, of course!!!!

Since you are either too lazy or too disrespectful to name the posters to whom you are addressing your replies, I will have to GUESS that refers to my "two types of atheists remarks."

If you re-read my remarks on that issue, you will see that I did not address the question of certainty at all. I talked about the way atheists describe their atheism -- either: I do not believe in GOD or I believe there are no gods.

[quote/]For my part, I am in category 5 above. I should be most interested to hear from anybody in 3-4 or 6-7 as to their basis for thinking that way, and why the conclusion to which you come is more right than the other conclusions.[/quote]

I never for one second thought you would be anything other than the above. That is why I am delighted to be participating in this thread. I have much more fun showing atheists why they are kidding themselves than I do theists.




If you've got something to say on this, James, why not just say it rather than looking for a theistic dupe to fall into your net.

If you think you have evidence that shows the probability that a GOD or gods exist is infinitesimally small - present it and let the people who are here have a shot at it. I for one would welcome the opportunity to see what arguments you have that you are so proud of.

Of course, I understand it is much easier for someone like you to argue with a theist. It doesn't take much to get theists so concerned with defending their indefensible position-- that they forget how indefensible the opposing position is also. That is why people like you prefer to deal with theists or near-theists.

As far as I'm concerned, James, the absurdity of the theistic position is a given. How about you defending that other position against someone who is willing to take you on in that area.

Oops, I see Max is here saying that not only is "there is a God" probable -- it is a certainty.

I guess that will give James his opportunity.

My belief that there is a God is unwavering.

Though I would prefer to attempt to convince someone that a stop sign is a rectangle not an octagon, rather than proselytize them on my specific religious beliefs.

It is God, through the Holy Spirit, which reveals Himself to man, and only after He is invited.

Luther said it best, "I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me with his Gospels, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the one true Christian Faith on earth..."

Now, I ask you, if I can't believe in God "myself" without the help of the Holy Spirit, how the heck am I supposed to convince someone else?!?

I can't, so I would stick threads such as this in the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" and "Let's solve pi!" category.

ditto on what Max said

Frank - I am sorry about not addressing people by name. It is new here, and I did not know that it was a convention. Now that I know that it is, I shall use it.

Max - I shall answer your point in a subsequent post.

Frank - I was addressing my remarks about two types of certainty to someone else, so I was not misrepresenting your position. For clarity, the rest of the thread is addressed to you.

"jamespetts wrote:
I reposted it here because one of the more experienced members suggested that I might get more replies here I hope that I haven't done the wrong thing.

By saying that beliefs are guesses, are you suggesting that no-one can come to a meaningful conclusion about anything?


I am??? And why is that???

If that is an example of your logic, perhaps this thread should have been posted in the entertainment section as well. "

Please read my posts carefully. You will see that I am asking you a question rather than making a statement. I am asking you whether, by contending that beliefs are guesses, you are saying that no-one is able to come to a meaningful conclusion about anything, not stating that you are. From your response to a misinterpretation of what I said, I should assume the answer to be "no". I should be most interested in reading your reasons for saying this. How do you define "belief", and how do you define "guess"?

I notice that you carefully avoided the question of whether, in your contention, any sentient being is or conceptually can be capable of making meaningful conclusions as to the probability of whether or not there exists a deity. What you have said, namely that you have not personally seen enough "unambiguous" evidence to make a meaningful conclusion on the matter, does not answer that question, which is a question that you are capable of answering given that it relates to nothing more than what you contend. It is an important question in that it defines clearly the type of reason that you assert for why you cannot draw meaningful conclusions.

If your answer to this is "no" (that sentient beings are, in your contention, incapable ever of making meaningful conclusions), then the question then arises as to the basis upon which you make that contention, which is necessarily a positive one, relating to the conceptual ability of sentient beings to understand the nature of the universe.

If your answer to this is "yes" (that sentient beings are conceptually capable of making meaningful conclusions), the question then arises as to why you are asserting that humans in particular have not yet acquired such an ability.

Do you accept that humans are capable of making meaningful judgments as to the laws of physics, the nature of matter, the constitution of the universe, the origins of life, the nature of existence, the interplay between matter, energy, time and space, the nature and constituion of logic and mathematics, and the origins of the known universe?

And how, precisely, for these purposes do you define a deity? The reason, by the way, that it is preferable to debate with theists than agnostics is because they are in a position to define a deity, whereas agnostics are not. One cannot make meaningful conclusions as to whether something that has no definition exists.

If you define a deity, as many religions appear to do, as an entity which can affect matter, which governs the origins of life, which has capabilities which are beyond those which are now known to be possible for anything in existence, in what sense is the question of whether there exists a deity different from the equally fundamental questions posed above?

I should contend that there is nothing about the concept of a deity that makes it qualitatively different in respect of whether its existence can be established than any of the matters mentioned above, and therefore that there is no basis for concluding that it is any harder to reach conclusions about it than anything else.

I should be very interested to know precisely why you differ from that proposition. What exaclty is it about a deity, do you contend, that makes establishing whether or not it exists so very much harder than establishing all of the other things that humans have been so very succesful at doing?

Max - the contentions that you made in your post do not go any way towards answering the questions in my first post.

You are making a positive convention that there exists a state of affairs (namely that there can be and is such a thing as a "holy spirit" which is capable of being "invited", and which, upon being so "invited", causes the inviter to believe in the existence of a deity, and that that belief is true) entirely independently from your mind, and yet you are advancing no rational basis for so contending.

What you are suggesting is that this state of affairs is objectively true and that it is an inherent constitutent of the universe, yet you have done nothing to go beyond the bald assertion that it is true to establish its truth.

By what thought process did you come to consider this state of affairs objectively true, and what is the basis upon which you now contend that you were right?

James

First of all, I offered an apology for my harshness in one of your other threads. Allow me to do the same here. I apologize and I intend to be more courteous from now on in our conversations.
*****

Nearly as I can tell, if we proceed with long posts directed toward several different issues, we are going to get nowhere fast.

So I suggest we agree on one item of contention (or possible contention) and discuss that to the exclusion, where possible, of other issues. We may make some progress that way.

One other procedural issue: You seem intent on using the Socratic method to put your debating adversary at a disadvantage. You are not dealing with defending your position as much as you are attempting to delve into minutia in your opponents take on things.

Let's be fair -- and switch the questioner's position from you to me at various times.

I will restate a position I have already offered -- and you tell me if some of the questions you asked in this last post apply to what I have said. All issues have various facets -- and certainly it makes sense to correlate facets, but please let us try to stay on one issue. I promise I will never try to avoid any point you make -- and if it seems I have, ask the question again. I'll deal with it.

Here is what I wrote earlier:

I am asserting that I do not know if there is a GOD; I do not know if there are no gods; I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous, probative evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction. (That, of course, includes making probability estimates in one direction or the other.) I have never heard anything from any other human being that indicates anyone else on the planet is or has ever been in a more informative position.

I do know there are people who assert they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is more probable there is a GOD; I do know there are people who assert they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it is more probable there are no gods.

I have listened carefully and reasonably to the arguments from both these factions and have come away astonished that intelligent people can be deluding themselves that way.

At no point am I saying that such information or knowledge is impossible to obtain. That would be stupid - and easily shown to be stupid. If, for instance, there is a GOD, that GOD could at any moment choose to reveal Itself in a clear and unambiguous way.

No question of that at all - although I am willing to suggest that the atheistic position does not have that possibility working for it. If the atheistic position is the reality - there is no way we will ever be able to establish that without doubt.

Now, what are your questions on that part of my argument?

James

About my penultimate paragraph.

Allow me to add: Nor will we be able to show the atheistic position to be more probable than the theistic position -- which I recognize, is what you say you are capable of doing.

We'll get into that when it becomes my turn to ask questions.

Frank - :-) Thank you for your apology which I am very happy to accept. The way of working that you suggest also seems reasonable for the time being, so I shall deal with that. :-)

I accept that nothing can ever be established without doubt - that is the basis of uncertainty theory.

Now, given that you accept (or at least I think that you accept - do correct me if I have misrepresented your position) that sentient beings are conceptually capable of making meaningful conclusions about whether or not a deity exists, I should be most grateful if you could answer the next question in that post which is, for the sake of clarity:

"Do you accept that humans are capable of making meaningful judgments as to the laws of physics, the nature of matter, the constitution of the universe, the origins of life, the nature of existence, the interplay between matter, energy, time and space, the nature and constituion of logic and mathematics, and the origins of the known universe?"

To clarify that question in the light of your answer, I am asking whether you accept that humans are capable of making meaningful judgments as to the probability of things in relation to those matters being true.

I look forward to your response :-)