On March 24 2013 21:14 peacenl wrote: If we had empirical proof of God's existence:
- We would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
- The study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
These 2 lines pretty much sum up everything regarding this topic. There is no use trying to find definitive proof for something which requires faith. If there was any direct proof everyone would be unanimous in his choice and there would be no need for religious text, prophets to come to earth or for us to even have this discussion.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
I find his argument rather weak, to be honest.
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
The premise that the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum is baseless. One can imagine such a thing (heck, you can even imagine some sort of space-time Moebius strip, that doesn't extend into infinity, but rather is looped). Also why is the premise that everything has to be "moved" by something suddenly lifted for the proposed first mover? Another baseless claim. Not to mention the fact that as a Christian, Aquinas adds a whole set of characteristics to that "first mover", including a personality, while in reality it could be just some natural event like the Big Bang. Not to mention the fact that he mixes up simple mechanics and ontological claims just like that. E.g. what is "a being that is itself unmoved" supposed to mean?
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Casimir effect - apparently certain events do not need a cause. Not to mention the fact that instead of admitting he doesn't know what was at the beginning or if there was any at all, he arbitrarily lifts his rule and says God did not have to have a cause.
There's also a time paradox of a man being his mother, father, son and daughter (or however it went...) at the same time. Dunno what's the current consensus on that, but it's something to consider.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
This is, again, contradicted by science (e.g. the Casimir effect). It also does not follow that nothing would exist if there was no "first event".
There's also this assumption that the only explanation why there exists something is that back in the days there was this necessary being. Alternative explanation would be that there simply was no time when nothing existed, so introducing a necessary being is not necessary...
Not to mention the fact that Aquinas uses the word "exist" very loosely. How did he define "beginning to be"? Everything that surrounds us is a collection of energy-matter. It's been here since Big Bang. So does anything come into existence these days or do we have to go back to Big Bang or whatever the origin of energy-matter was?
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
This one went more like this:
"There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "
This one is stupid beyond belief. This guy must've had no grasp of mathematics whatsoever.
What he's saying is essentially that we describe things by referring to the "uttermost" case, which e.g. in case of temperature would be equal to saying that today's temperature is 0,15% of infinity. This is beyond stupid, sorry.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
On March 24 2013 21:44 zbedlam wrote: You can't prove or disprove anything based around faith.
I dunno, Aelfric's second video link "Putting faith in it's place" makes a pretty compelling argument that you can in fact disprove logically inconsistent faith based claims. Or did you mean to say that we can't convince some one who attempts to justify their belief with faith of this? If that's the case I would agree that it can be a difficult task, but certainly not an impossible one.
I simply lack a belief in deities because I've found no empirical reasons to believe in them. The onus is on the theist to present evidence for his belief if he so wishes to make religion and theism sound like anything more than just a defense mechanism or a belief in a guardian angel. And I'm fine with having a dialogue that's evidence-based rather than faith-based. I'm not going to say for certain that no deities can exist (I see no point in having such a strong position when a weaker one is just as effective- if not moreso- from a practical and proof-based standpoint), but the lack of evidence, poor arguments, and countless discounted mythologies that we've seen over the years surely points more towards god being created by man, rather than man being created by god.
I'm looking forward to reading any new arguments for the existence of a deity
I also like that the op structured it this way. Since I am in the "No God" side, I will just wait for others to present their proof and see how it is. I am eager that we move to phase 2. By the way, what would be the topic then? And how many phases will there be?
Being a supporter of an existing religion and being a theist should be two separate subjects of discussion. When I think of religion, I think of being a Christian, Muslim, etc. This is not the same as believing there is something more than our current realm of existence. While I think you need to give up rational thinking to support any of these archaic religions, that does not mean I rule out the existence of godlike/godly being(s).
To clarify the discussion, what are we talking about when we talk about god? Is this thing omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient? Is it immortal? Does it need to be any or all of these things?
On March 24 2013 20:03 Proxan wrote: No, there is no evidence what so ever. And the better educated people become, fewer and fewer are also religious. This is a sane and healthy outcome. If no one taught religion, in a few generations, no one would be religious. I think it's important that people should try and learn as much as possible about the world around us instead of trying to adhere to a higher meaning, especially when there probably isn't one. If Islam would not be the law in so many countries, they would have been far more developed, and they would be less likely to be at war and they would have no reason to stone people to death on the street for being the victim of rape. I find it completely horrendous that in 2013, it's by law, perfectly OK to do that in those countries.
I find it quite hard to believe this discussion is going to end in anything constructive with posts like this. Proxan's post if far more civil than 95% of all posts about religion, but still amount to rhetoric about religion not being rational or sane, with no examples or evidence or explanation of this point. And then just a good old generic the world would be better without it. As for the Islamic part, I'm not Islamic so i wont defend it beyond perhaps putting the notion in your head that 1.6 billion people follow islam and yet your idea of rape and stoning is not commonplace, which perhaps implies it only exists in the most extreme situations which conveniently suit your example, and furthermore people who do rape and stone people to death probably would most likely be horrible people in western society following no religion too.
As for the education = less religious, this is a claim made by many but with no scientific facts behind it. A) give me a definition of someone well educated and b) Show me a study that is unbiased by culture and western zeitgeist which actually shows conclusively that this is true, you wont, because it doesn't exist. Whats actually interesting is that one of the best studies preformed on this subject actually reveal that in America the rise of lack of faith is happening in the deep south, the bible belts, the northern states are not changing much if at all. What this shows perhaps is that with all the factors of the modern media and culture, that education does make people less religious at first, but then it reaches a steady state. But if you are to refute this or discuss this further we both need to cite proper studies with ample analysis and sample sizes.
As for the other posts:
On March 24 2013 20:05 Aelfric wrote:
The author of this video seems to get himself quite confused when it comes to prayer. First of all he cites coincidence, says this can be the case with prayer, so when do you know the difference. Well for a start why do people need to know the difference? Secondly as someone who believes in an omnipotent omnipresent God, they would surely say there was no coincidence, only a grand sort of micromanagement in the manifestation of a sort of chaos theory, leading to seemly random outcomes, after all how could a human mind possibly comprehend even the most simplest plan of such a powerful and knowledgeable deity.
Secondly he cites the confirmation bias idea. He seems to be very confused here as to what the confirmation bias actually is. The example of a rain-dance or a lucky hat is fair enough. You ignore the outcomes you dont want and selective dont remember them, and when an outcome you do want happens your brain adds extra weight to it within your memories, thus making you believe it works more than it doesn't. Well prayer clearly doesn't work like that, if a parents child they have been praying for relentlessly to survive say leukemia dies, the brain doesn't toss that aside, far from it. Religious people believe that prayers do have the answer no or are answered in a different way, so the confirmation bias idea has no application to this concept. The author is confused.
He then talks about responsibility for good bad things that happen ect. This is were it just become preposterous, there is no right or wrong in a secular society, everything is subjective. He starts talking about problems and wrong, as if these words have meaning without an objective definition, sigh.
On March 24 2013 20:05 Aelfric wrote:
This video is pretty bad, doesn't actually address any of the arguments, gives some vague philosophy on only what i assume is supposed to be some set theory paradox of some sort badly explained. The quality of the content of this video is just plain awful, why do people even watch them? You'd get more water tight argument from a George Carlin stand-up DVD.
On March 24 2013 20:05 Aelfric wrote:
Starts off with some basic logic and philosophy, then goes into the definition of atheism blah blah. Some rubbish about god needed worship when he doesn't, then making a huge amount of assumptions about some arbitrary definition of perfect. He then talks with a vocabulary of fancy words and says nothing for a while, ranting about the word atheism. And then makes another silly claim, apparently the default view is no God when your born, not only does he dismantle his own argument in the next sentence, he also fails to correct himself, clearly the default view is superstition as a whole, since a tribe in the amazon left to its own devices comes to the conclusion of some sort of deity usually, while us westerners who are told what to think through education don't. He then rants about the word atheists, and then talks about the persecution of atheists in the western world, haha, good one. Then again he talks about some subjective concepts, at least should be from his perspective, and then quotes spiderman.
On March 24 2013 21:42 eSen1a wrote: Religion is only a means for weak people that can't or don't want to accept their inevitable non-existence
Like James Clerk Maxwell?
And lastly on faith. Faith is not some word that anti-theists can throw around meaning "stupid thought" or "magic did it". One has faith that their wife will not cheat on them, one had faith that they would sit on a chair and it would not collapse. A girl has faith in the law system that when she brings her rapist up to trail he be given correct trail and sentence. Faith is not some "magic did it" excuse, it far more complicated than that, can "rational beings" start treating it as such and stop pretending that faith means something completely different when talking about deities to suit their needs than it does when these same "rational" beings use it in every day language with its proper meaning.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
The premise that the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum is baseless. One can imagine such a thing (heck, you can even imagine some sort of space-time Moebius strip, that doesn't extend into infinity, but rather is looped). Also why is the premise that everything has to be "moved" by something suddenly lifted for the proposed first mover? Another baseless claim. Not to mention the fact that as a Christian, Aquinas adds a whole set of characteristics to that "first mover", including a personality, while in reality it could be just some natural event like the Big Bang. Not to mention the fact that he mixes up simple mechanics and ontological claims just like that. E.g. what is "a being that is itself unmoved" supposed to mean?
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Casimir effect - apparently certain events do not need a cause. Not to mention the fact that instead of admitting he doesn't know what was at the beginning or if there was any at all, he arbitrarily lifts his rule and says God did not have to have a cause.
There's also a time paradox of a man being his mother, father, son and daughter (or however it went...) at the same time. Dunno what's the current consensus on that, but it's something to consider.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
This is, again, contradicted by science (e.g. the Casimir effect). It also does not follow that nothing would exist if there was no "first event".
There's also this assumption that the only explanation why there exists something is that back in the days there was this necessary being. Alternative explanation would be that there simply was no time when nothing existed, so introducing a necessary being is not necessary...
Not to mention the fact that Aquinas uses the word "exist" very loosely. How did he define "beginning to be"? Everything that surrounds us is a collection of energy-matter. It's been here since Big Bang. So does anything come into existence these days or do we have to go back to Big Bang or whatever the origin of energy-matter was?
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
This one went more like this:
"There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "
This one is stupid beyond belief. This guy must've had no grasp of mathematics whatsoever.
What he's saying is essentially that we describe things by referring to the "uttermost" case, which e.g. in case of temperature would be equal to saying that today's temperature is 0,15% of infinity. This is beyond stupid, sorry.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
The theory of evolution disagrees...
Forget Casimir effect. Read Krauss "The Universe from Nothing". Gravity is a real crazy entity. To summarize, Krauss claims that elements appear and disappear out of nothing once you add gravity, and it happens all the time.
Why is proving or disproving the existence of God the only thing people want to talk about? There's so much else to discuss.
To anyone who's tired of these stale debates why don't you read Karen Armstrong's "A History of God," "The Battle for God," and "The Case for God." She's a skeptic ex-nun who has a great take on religious history. Among other things, she does a great job of showing how what we're talking about today is really just a product of our time, and that this whole "Does God exist" question for most of history has not been particularly important. And it's not because people have been ignorant and superstitious. People have been quite sophisticated throughout history.
Even our modern notion of what "faith" is has very little to do with people meant by the word 1000 years ago.
So, if you're curious about religious experience and thought and understanding the world the way someone else might have centuries ago, Karen Armstrong is for you. Most of it is still relevant today.
Edit: Armstrong's jumping off point is not the existence of God but the existence of numinous experience. She accepts this as a fact, that people have had experiences that point to something beyond normal, everyday thought and sensory perception. (I've had these experiences myself from time to time.) She goes from those experiences to people's attempts to explain them, codify them, and bring them about consistently. Some people have only had one such experience once, and have spent their whole lives writing about them.
She shows how most attempts to explain these experiences fall flat on their face as far as rational language is concerned, but she also discusses how the point of religious language is not to be a logical, rational explanation of numinous experience, but more like a creative attempt to bring about the thing itself, or help you understand it when you get there. It's more like making art. Some people have a knack for it. Some people don't.
There are exercises and modes of thinking to help get into the state of mind where real creativity is possible, but explaining creativity is not a way to bring about creativity. Numinous experience is inherently paradoxical and illogical when described in rational language. That's reason for the centrality of myth, ritual, and contemplation in religious life, to bring about those experiences, that closeness to numinous experience, that sense of wonder, of that sense of God. But attempts to actually explain what God is, or is not, always fail.
It's like that Zen saying, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." If you think you know what you're talking about, you're wrong.
This is why I get frustrated when the first topic about religion is whether or not God exists. It's too theoretical. Let's think like engineers. If something works, it doesn't really matter why so much as how. The question should be, in my humble opinion, "what ways of accessing numinous experience have worked for you?"
the funny thing is even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe. That has been a prevailing theme in the bible. so these are in the end all just excuses. believing doesnt just mean "God exists" but it means so much more, at least in the Christian sense. It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p
Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost. That's why threads like this don't really get anywhere for the most part. Just think about truth and go walk towards it, religious or not. If christians are right then people will find God, if not, then people will not. what's important is the "seeking" aspect and never getting complacent.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
On March 24 2013 22:16 UdderChaos wrote: And lastly on faith. Faith is not some word that anti-theists can throw around meaning "stupid thought" or "magic did it". One has faith that their wife will not cheat on them, one had faith that they would sit on a chair and it would not collapse. A girl has faith in the law system that when she brings her rapist up to trail he be given correct trail and sentence. Faith is not some "magic did it" excuse, it far more complicated than that, can "rational beings" start treating it as such and stop pretending that faith means something completely different when talking about deities to suit their needs than it does when these same "rational" beings use it in every day language with its proper meaning.
You're equivocating two very different definitions of "faith".
To have faith in your girlfriend as she goes off to college, or to have faith that your chair will hold you, implies a logical conclusion based off countless experiences and evidence (e.g., you trust your girlfriend because you've been dating for seven years, the chair has always supported your weight in the past and isn't creaking or broken, etc.).
On the other hand, there is also blind faith that some people throw around as a conversation-ender and as a reason to believe something instead of evidence (i.e., "Why do you believe this?" -> "I don't know; just have faith that it's true [so respect my belief].") You need to have (blind) faith that unicorns exist, for example, or anything else that doesn't have direct evidence to support it. And this type of faith is not worthy of respect (in my opinion).
While the first one is fine to use (as you can cite reasons why you believe something), dealing with arguments of blind faith are looked down upon because they don't necessarily provide a logical backing for a belief. And while some religious people or theists may attempt to argue from an empirical and evidence-based standpoint (definition one), many others think that blind faith suffices (definition two). The latter doesn't suffice when a dialogue is trying to emerge.
It's important to distinguish between the two, and that differentiation emerges when someone cares to (or doesn't care to) back up their claim.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
Of course we have no empirical evidence. Look up Hume's no miracles argument. Humans will look for and thus find an explanation for everything. Thus there can't be any miracles and no way to verify God through empirical evidence.
Does that mean no evidence exists? No. Can we find it? According to this argument, no. So we're in a bad spot.
On March 24 2013 22:21 Milkis wrote: the funny thing is even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe. That has been a prevailing theme in the bible. so these are in the end all just excuses. believing doesnt just mean "God exists" but it means so much more, at least in the Christian sense. It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p
Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost. That's why threads like this don't really get anywhere for the most part. Just think about truth and go walk towards it, religious or not. If christians are right then people will find God, if not, then people will not. what's important is the "seeking" aspect and never getting complacent.
I don't really understand your points; can you elaborate?
1. "even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe" and so therefore providing evidence for your belief is worthless? Who says that people aren't open-minded about the existence of a deity? After all, the onus is on the theist to present evidence for his claim, if he so wishes to defend his belief. To just end the conversation with "You wouldn't believe me anyway" is a cop-out.
2. "It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p" More than what? And what else does it take?
3. "Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost." So if blind faith is illogical, what reason (other than a defense mechanism) should we have for actually employing a belief based on no evidence? People do it all the time, especially regarding the supernatural.
4. If any religion in particular is right, then that's a big deal. It's not as easily dismissible as "people will all end up believing what is right". Clearly that's not the case, since countless religions have existed and the majority of people haven't believed in any one particular religion. Most people who die every day clearly haven't found *the correct god or belief*, because so many people disagree on so many things.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
First three are based on assumptions that are not necessarily true. Plus of course if everything requires a cause so does god.
On March 24 2013 21:44 zbedlam wrote: You can't prove or disprove anything based around faith.
I dunno, Aelfric's second video link "Putting faith in it's place" makes a pretty compelling argument that you can in fact disprove logically inconsistent faith based claims. Or did you mean to say that we can't convince some one who attempts to justify their belief with faith of this? If that's the case I would agree that it can be a difficult task, but certainly not an impossible one.
The latter.
You can point out flaws with religious belief all you want, they will adapt as needed if they have enough faith.
Taking the most common example - quite a bit of the bible has been proven to be factually incorrect, but luckily for Christians it isn't technically the word of god unlike some other notable religion so they just turn all the incorrect parts into metaphors. Or in some really backward places around the world they still take it literally.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
What about the common sense definition of god as in god of religion, God the father among christians, Allah, Yahweh, and whoever else there is. This philosophical linguistic bullshit is really irritating.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
What about the common sense definition of god as in god of religion, God the father among christians, Allah, Yahweh, and whoever else there is. This philosophical linguistic bullshit is really irritating.
Common sense definition? The Greeks have a far different understanding of their god(s) than the Christians. Monotheistic deities may be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., while polytheism often presents different niches and vulnerabilities for different gods, so that they complement, interact, and interfere with one another. And this doesn't even include all the non-religious definitions of god (e.g., deistic).
It's an important thing to define, since you don't want an equivocation of the definition between two sides. If your arguing for apples and I'm arguing against oranges, the conversation just won't be constructive.
If you wish to argue for the monotheistic, almighty God, then it's important you make that clear (and then by all means, argue away!)
Although seemingly rational, there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling). Therefore I feel this thread has little hope.
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion greatly explains it and represents most of my views on this matter.
EPT
