Does the claim "there is no God" require evidence/reasoning to support it?

[JDaniel]

Results. Philosophy is a fast track to a career in the convenience food industry while science and engineering have built the world we live in.

I would politely ask you to leave us then. What is your purpose? Do you work in the convenience food industry?

I’m not so sure holding a degree in science or engineering is all that substantial either. Take a good look at their average incomes. People in the porn or prostitution industries do better, and I’m not interested in either of them either.

Grow up? If you can prove there’s a prime mover then why not stop being petulant and do so?

You have been on CAF for quite a while. You have seen my posts before, some time ago. If the previous couple of your posts is the best you can do, I just may have - much to your chagrin!

God bless,
jd

 

[Nan_S]

Oh yes, do let’s examine it.

So you want God to be responsible for a Universe of failed solar systems, imploding stars, empty space and planets that resemble Milton’s hell, leaving one little lump of rock that can support life on parts of it’s surface, some of the time? A universe where 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the space is so hostile to human life that it would wipe us all out near instantaneously?

All this for the benefit of a creature so appallingly designed that it’s primative limb structure causes it’s arms to be prone to breaking at the wrist and it’s teeth don’t even fit in it’s jaw bones, condemning all those without access to modern dentistry a lifetime of chronic pain? A creature so badly designed that without midwifery, one in five women would die in childbirth because the head of the child can’t hit through the pelvis. A creature so badly designed that it has 430 oncogenes built into every cell in it’s mutating and aging body?

All of these things are perfectly comprehensible in terms of a creature that has unique character combinations in a nested heriarchy. Not really so in terms of an infallible designer.

Is that what you want God to take repsonsibility for?

What a myopic, disenchanted perspective you have. And you’re still so very young, with so much you haven’t even seen or done yet.

Your statistics about humanity and the universe are, well… shall we just say they are a little bit short-sighted? I suppose I could be just as disenchanted as you if I believed everything I found on the internet.

You’ve chosen to spend your life surfing internet forums spewing hostile arguments. Sad. As for me, I choose to go out, embrace the glorious life God offers to us, and thank God every day for giving me the opportunity.

Have you ever seen a sunrise or sunset from 35,000 feet? Up there you can see every color of the rainbow in a glorious display that fills the horizon. When was the last time you cradled a newborn baby and pondered this precious creation with awe? Have you ever hiked a mountain trail, and stood in the cold mist at the foot of a cascading waterfall stretching 2,000 feet above you? And pressed on during that hike with blistered feet and painful knees, because you know that the glorious secenery you are experiencing is worth it anyway? Have you explored the Giant’s Causeway in County Antrim and pondered the mute evidence of the incredible natural forces behind its spectacular beauty? Have you ever tutored a child struggling with his lessons, and felt a warm glow when he suddenly blinks, smiles, and announces that he just “got it”? Have you spent time taking care of and listening to an elderly lady, and been told that the thing she is most grateful for is the chance to serve you? Have you ever been summoned outdoors in the wee hours of a bitterly cold winter night, for no decent reason at all, and then looked up and seen the Aurora Borealis filling the sky overhead and dancing?

Yes, the evidence for the existence of God is all around us, and we can see it in ordinary, everyday ways if we only take the time to look.

And with that I’m going to say farewell, exit this forum, and go back to living the incredible life God has given me and my loved ones.

 

[Windfish]

I’m still following the discussion, but I’ve become more confused about the semantics? Can anyone recommend a resource or a book that I can read for a clear discussion for a dummy like me?

 

[R_Daneel]

At the very least you are a thinker. At most, you ravenously desire a concise and powerful rationale in order to believe. (You will find it. But, not yet.)

Certainly that would be welcome. As for your assertion that I will find it… I ask you: “when”? Since you “know” that I will find it, I hope you also know the asnwer to that corollary question.

As to the fluidity of the saving grace of Catholicism: God did not create us in order to have our souls rot in Hell. His preference, I’m sure, is to somehow “save” everyone - and possibly everything. However, neither of us is God. So, we cannot know what is involved in a creation performed solely in order that the Creator may bask in the knowledge of Himself. That, at first glance, sounds somewhat self-centered. But, when one considers that ultimately, the triune God, and all of His Creations, want nothing more than to participate with that in some manner He must safeguard the vision.

Sorry, you are using two different standards. On one hand you deny my simple and logical results drawn from the alleged attributes of God’s justice and mercy, by saying that I lack the necessary information.

That would be well and good if at the same time you would apply the same standard for the claims on the Catholic Church. But you don’t. And that is not correct. The Catholic Church is comprised of fallible humans. It has no “dibs” on being correct. Yes the CC claims that it is “infallible”, but has no evidence to support that claim. Claims are dime a dozen.

To sum it up: you deny the logical and reasonable claims of an atheist saying that he does not have access to the “whole picture”, but you accept the claims of CC which also has no access to the “whole picture”. You try to blow both cold and hot from your mouth at the same time.

We, as mere mortals, cannot stand in place of God. We can only guess at His purposes. Ultimately, this mortal battlefield is not to be our final resting place. He knows this. As we used to say when we were kids, our lives are nothing more than a gnat on an elephants rear! 70 years is such a tiny fraction of the potential infinity of time that is, or will be, the Universe.

Again, We cannot stand in for God. Our understanding of God’s Creative Act is but a distant analogy of the almightiness that characterizes the ultimate being.

Again, if you realize all that, then you forfeited your right to say anything about God.

The Church recognizes a purgatory. The Church recognizes that the frailty of humans can easily find us in positions of invincible ignorance. The Church (and God) makes allowances for these deficiencies in our knowledge. We have no idea where we will be, or, what it will be like to be in purgatory, or, to die in invincible ignorance. Hell is for those whose souls have corrupted beyond save-ability. Otherwise, we have reconciliation through the Church here on earth, reconciliation through purgatory, and pure ignorance to help us get reconciled.

The purgatory is just a Catholic invention.

(It’s a good thing I’m not a mod!)

For whom?

Realize that many Catholics are here to learn, even though many will give their thoughts. Some of their thoughts might be unmeritorious… Some of their thoughts might be incorrect conclusions brought forward through life from childhood. For myself, I apologize if I have provided misleading information about the beliefs of the Church.

I realize that. I also realize that they put forth their ill-formed opinions as if those were the final “truths”. And they will stick to them no matter how clearly those “truths” are refuted…

 

[Windfish]

dbskeptic.com/2008/05/15/a-primer-on-negative-weak-atheism/

I found the above on a simple Google search. Thoughts? I found it to be quite helpful.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I would politely ask you to leave us then.

And I’d politely ask you not to read my posts.

You have been on CAF for quite a while. You have seen my posts before, some time ago. If the previous couple of your posts is the best you can do, I just may have - much to your chagrin!

God bless,
jd

No, you haven’t.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What a myopic, disenchanted perspective you have. And you’re still so very young, with so much you haven’t even seen or done yet.

I’m 35 years old and this is overweening, vainglorious, self righteous drivel. My age has nothing to do with this and you know nothing about me.

Have you ever seen a sunrise or sunset from 35,000 feet?

Yes.

When was the last time you cradled a newborn baby and pondered this precious creation with awe?

Eighteen months ago.

Have you ever hiked a mountain trail, and stood in the cold mist at the foot of a cascading waterfall stretching 2,000 feet above you?

Yes.

And pressed on during that hike with blistered feet and painful knees, because you know that the glorious secenery you are experiencing is worth it anyway?

Yes.

Have you explored the Giant’s Causeway in County Antrim and pondered the mute evidence of the incredible natural forces behind its spectacular beauty?

I haven’t been to Ireland, you’ve got me there.

Have you ever tutored a child struggling with his lessons, and felt a warm glow when he suddenly blinks, smiles, and announces that he just “got it”?

Yes.

Have you spent time taking care of and listening to an elderly lady

Yes.

Have you ever been summoned outdoors in the wee hours of a bitterly cold winter night, for no decent reason at all, and then looked up and seen the Aurora Borealis filling the sky overhead and dancing?

Yes. In 2003.

Yes, the evidence for the existence of God is all around us, and we can see it in ordinary, everyday ways if we only take the time to look.

Wrong. Every single thing you’ve mentioned there is a natural phenomenon. Have you ever seen a bush burst into flame when you were about to cut your sons throat? Have you ever spent three days inside the entrails of a whale?

None of the things you mentioned do not have well understood physical causes.

 

[tonyrey]

My brother, the person known by the forum moniker Charles Darwin originally, has been banned numerous times. I have the same familiarity with the operation of computers that he does, and even if I couldn’t get around a ban, he could do it for me, as you’ve seen.

I doubt whether he’s your brother… A person can be identified by his ideas, style of writing and quirks if he posts regularly for several months…

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t have to spell; we’re all adults here!!!

God bless,
jd

Emphasis, my friend!

 

[tonyrey]

Do you equate you with your body?

That explains your mindless remarks…

The phrase “the Jew’s mother” is obviously intended to offend…

It certainly wasn’t intended as offense.

If you deceive in one way you’re very likely to deceive in others…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

But then I really don’t get the way philosophers think at all… I don’t suppose I ever will… Meandering thoughts untested with corrolation to observations and experimentation based on physical evidence are tantamount to a deadly sin as far as I’m concerned.

What tests have you conducted and what physical evidence has led you to observe there is no God?

Sounds like you do some meandering of your own!

 

[Leela]

The athiests’ argument, that the existence of God requires extraordinary proof, is itself an illogical statement designed to cut off debate. The proof for the existence of God is actually quite ordinary. God makes His existence manifest in all things around us. Just as an archaeologist proves the existence of ancient civilizations by examining what they built, so we also can see and know the existence of God by examining the creator’s handiwork.

I agree that anything and everything can be regarded as evidence that God exists depending on what you mean by God.

But if you make some extraordinary claim about what your belief entails, questions come to mind.

You make such a dubious claim below–that the resurrection requires no more evidence than that some people said they saw it:

Hundreds of witnesses? As Sam Harris noted:
"First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as extraordinary as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I bet it would be easy to find 500 western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite Eastern yogi has magic powers.

I remain open to evidence of such powers, but as far as I can tell, all of these stories are told by people who desperately want to believe them, all lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature’s laws have been broken in this way, and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations.

In any case, we don’t need to rely on a two-thousand year old book to find the sort of proof that you seem to find compelling. Stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future, etc., are being told now.

Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! Sai Baba is not the David Koresh of the East. His followers threw him a birthday party and a million people showed up. He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his “miracles” on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed.

I don’t find these stories being told today any more compelling than you do. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible?"

So here are some real issues here that we have to deal with in regard to the resurrection:

(1) Are the ancient accounts trustworthy, given that we have no first-person accounts but only those written down by others decades after the events they describe?

(2) Are first-person accounts of miracles trustworthy even today, given that millions of people attest to having witnessed miracles performed by their spiritual leaders?

Do you believe the above referenced miracle stories about Sai Baba? If not, why not? What would convince you that they are true/false?

 

[JDaniel]

Certainly that would be welcome. As for your assertion that I will find it… I ask you: “when”? Since you “know” that I will find it, I hope you also know the asnwer to that corollary question.

If your experience is similar to the experiences of a great many others, including mine, it will take time. Now, I’m working very hard to continue to be nice and charitable to you. I would ask you to return the favor.

Sorry, you are using two different standards. On one hand you deny my simple and logical results drawn from the alleged attributes of God’s justice and mercy, by saying that I lack the necessary information.

Not at all. You have defined the your standards according to your specifications. Not the Church’s or mine.

That would be well and good if at the same time you would apply the same standard for the claims on the Catholic Church. But you don’t. And that is not correct. The Catholic Church is comprised of fallible humans. It has no “dibs” on being correct. Yes the CC claims that it is “infallible”, but has no evidence to support that claim. Claims are dime a dozen.

When Christ asked Peter to come to him, just before Christ was taken to be crucified, he had an intimate conversation with Peter. We tend to think of the name, “Peter”, in literality. Actually, what it meant - before translation into English - was “rock”. Christ said, “Thou art Peter, (Petros, Cephas) “Rock”, and upon you ( THIS Rock) I will build my Church.”

Now, if Christ is God, as we Catholics believe and know, we further believe that He would not deceive us, nor build His Church on deception. This stands to reason: logically. So, while you are correct, “the Church is comprised of fallible humans”, these fallible humans can be guided by almighty God. Again, reasonable and logical.

To sum it up: you deny the logical and reasonable claims of an atheist saying that he does not have access to the “whole picture”, but you accept the claims of CC which also has no access to the “whole picture”.

As you can plainly see, the Church can logically and reasonably back up its claims to infallibility.

You try to blow both cold and hot from your mouth at the same time.

Again, I ask you to be charitable, even if you can’t be Christian.

Again, if you realize all that, then you forfeited your right to say anything about God.

Neither I, nor any else, is “standing in” for God. You, on the other hand, are certainly trying to.

As best as I can, I am trying to relate to you what Catholics believe, and what the Church has taught. However, I am not infallible. If I am wrong, others will quickly correct my misgivings.

The purgatory is just a Catholic invention.

Not at all. See: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp . While there are those Christians that do not believe in purgatory, there is enough supporting evidence, logic and reason to believe that the concept is biblical that, that in recent years, many Protestants are discovering its verisimilitude.

In any event, this has been discussed many, many times on this forum. There are sufficient vigorous debates where you can certainly find the arguments and come to your own conclusion.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
(1) Are the ancient accounts trustworthy, given that we have no first-person accounts but only those written down by others decades after the events they describe?*

Is your interpretation trustworthy? I think not. You are an atheist and you would do or say anything to sow the seeds of doubt.

In fact, Mark was a disciple of Peter, and was his assistant during his last years. It is generally conceded by most biblical scholars (Catholic and Protestant) that Marl wrote the first Gospel, after which the others elaborated in their own way. Because so much detail concerning the life of Christ is given, and because Peter is at or near the center of these stories, we can reasonably infer that Peter dictated the notes the Mark took and from which he wrote his Gospel.

For you to imply that Mark made this up out of whole cloth leads me to wonder about your credentials for even discussing this matter. I have certainly more reason to find Mark more credible than your sneering doubts.

 

[JDaniel]

And I’d politely ask you not to read my posts.

Moonstruck:

Your motivation precedes you.

God bless,
jd

 

[Moonstruck888]

I doubt whether he’s your brother… A person can be identified by his ideas, style of writing and quirks if he posts regularly for several months…

Oh he’s still here, but he doesn’t call himself Moonstruck… Actually, his moniker is rather amusing. I’m surprised none of you have figured it out…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Unless you learn to present your position in a rational, logical fashion, don’t expect many to take your position very seriously.

Edit: And this post is very good example of how not to do it.

Why would I wish to present my points logically? You know I consider logic to be a feeble discipline. I have already stated that opinion many times.

 

[R_Daneel]

If your experience is similar to the experiences of a great many others, including mine, it will take time. Now, I’m working very hard to continue to be nice and charitable to you. I would ask you to return the favor.

I don’t know what is “uncharitable” about asking a logical question.

When Christ asked Peter to come to him, just before Christ was taken to be crucified, he had an intimate conversation with Peter. We tend to think of the name, “Peter”, in literality. Actually, what it meant - before translation into English - was “rock”. Christ said, “Thou art Peter, (Petros, Cephas) “Rock”, and upon you ( THIS Rock) I will build my Church.”

Now, if Christ is God, as we Catholics believe and know, we further believe that He would not deceive us, nor build His Church on deception. This stands to reason: logically. So, while you are correct, “the Church is comprised of fallible humans”, these fallible humans can be guided by almighty God. Again, reasonable and logical.

Sorry, it is merely a legend. Then, even accepting the legend as valid, it still does not follow that the foundation of the Church will ensure the continued “infallibility” of the humans comprizing the church. There are many examples when the assertions of the Church were found to be incorrect. And the usual “evasion tactics”, that these were not “officially” taught by the Church is wearing very thin indeed. The Cathecism is wishy-washy about saying things outright. There is no official list of enumerating the “official teachings” of the Church. So the cop-out of “this is not an official teaching” is a most convenient way of rejecting the embarrasment when the Church is caught “red-handed” for teaching something incorrectly. After all one would think that the Holy Spirit would intervene and prevent any and all errors the fallible members of the Church might happen to utter. Obviously it is not happening, so the infallibility of the Church is clearly an erroneous assertion.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What tests have you conducted and what physical evidence has led you to observe there is no God?

I’ve already illustrated that in a previous post. It’s all very well for you to say that the fact that sweeps across the enitre EM band using precise scientific instrumentation have detected no God field, that no current scientific hypothesis or theory has incorporated or would lead one to believe that there is a God field, is not proof that God doesn’t exist.

In actual fact, God has always been used to fill the gaps in human knowledge and as those gaps are being plugged God is becoming smaller and smaller. That is evidence that has led me to believe there is no God.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck:

Your motivation precedes you.

God bless,
jd

I see little point in discourse with you when the content of your argument against me is nothing more than baseless claims to superiority and pointless insults.

There is no alterior motive.