For Non-Believers. Has the Philosophy Forum convinced you God Exists

[Linusthe2nd]

This is a poll not a debate. I can see from the various comments to the threads on this Forum that the answer is no. However, many read the comments and do not actively participate. That is why I have put up the poll. I will put up other polls for believers after Christmas. Have a nice Christmass everyone and drive safely.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If some one had been convinced would said person still be a non-believer?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If some one had been convinced would said person still be a non-believer?

I am trying to find out if any chain of discussions here led anyone from non-belief to belief. Does that make sense?

 

[belorg]

I voted no. This forum has actually strengthened my atheism.

 

[CountrySteve]

I voted no. This forum has actually strengthened my atheism.

If i may ask, how come it has? Whats your reasons for it strengthening your atheism?

 

[samiam1611]

It most certainly has not convinced me God, as described by Catholicism and similar belief systems, exists. It has made me think about the beginning of the universe though and how unexplainable it is. So those who explain that one of the main reasons they believe in God is bc something outside the universe “had” to start it don’t seem completely unreasonable.
But once people bring in talk of love and the warm fuzzy feelings they got one time that convinced them God exists…well…

 

[Neildown]

It most certainly has not convinced me God, as described by Catholicism and similar belief systems, exists. It has made me think about the beginning of the universe though and how unexplainable it is. So those who explain that one of the main reasons they believe in God is bc something outside the universe “had” to start it don’t seem completely unreasonable.
But once people bring in talk of love and the warm fuzzy feelings they got one time that convinced them God exists…well…

I can see where you’re coming from - there are way too many people out there who make it into (or at least make it look like) an entirely emotional experience.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It most certainly has not convinced me God, as described by Catholicism and similar belief systems, exists. It has made me think about the beginning of the universe though and how unexplainable it is. So those who explain that one of the main reasons they believe in God is bc something outside the universe “had” to start it don’t seem completely unreasonable.
But once people bring in talk of love and the warm fuzzy feelings they got one time that convinced them God exists…well…

That is odd because if you stick to the threads that are really philosophically based I would say we are a hard nosed bunch. However, you may have noticed that many threads here are actually in the wrong forum. Perhaps you were lumping them into your judgment.

 

[Bakmoon]

It hasn’t convinced me of it. Actually, I don’t see that many threads on just the subject of God’s existence. Mostly I see threads that are about some of the more tangental aspects of that question such as the objectivity of morality, various issues regarding epistemology, and other related things rather than the main issue.

 

[Wedded_to_God]

The debate concerning the existence of God is one of the oldest and most discussed debates in human history. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and popular culture.

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Later, Epicurus formulated the problem of evil: if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? The field of theodicy arose from attempts to answer this question. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God’s existence has been discussed by philosophers and scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga.

Atheists maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to believe. Additionally, some contend that it is possible to affirmatively disprove the existence of God, or of certain characteristics traditionally attributed to God. Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the “natural light of human reason” alone. Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not concern themselves with the existence of gods at all.

:angel1:

 

[Bballer32]

But once people bring in talk of love and the warm fuzzy feelings they got one time that convinced them God exists…well…

I agree with you on this part… well partly hahaha

Experiences with God can be emotional indeed… but what people don’t realize is that God’s love isn’t just emotional. The dry parts of a person’s life still has God’s love in it even though they “feel” like He isn’t there.

And one other thing… what exactly is holding you back from the belief of God?
if you don’t mind me asking

 

[samiam1611]

That is odd because if you stick to the threads that are really philosophically based I would say we are a hard nosed bunch. However, you may have noticed that many threads here are actually in the wrong forum. Perhaps you were lumping them into your judgment.

Oops…you are totally right. The emotional stuff is not so much in the philosophy forum. I was thinking CAF in general. :doh2:
Ok here is my revised answer.
CAF members who frequent the philosophy forum have a more reasonable belief in God than some of those in the other forums.
Better?

The thing is, y’all’s god seems different from their god. It seems like you have different understandings/conceptions of God. Also, the other forums talk about Jesus a lot more ( Jesus awwww ) whereas here you guys talk about deeper stuff and don’t seem totally cuckoo. Y’all actually have good points sometimes, even though they don’t convince me. They are okay. Sometimes.

 

[samiam1611]

I can see where you’re coming from - there are way too many people out there who make it into (or at least make it look like) an entirely emotional experience.

I agree with you on this part… well partly hahaha

Whew, :coolinoff: I was worried I might offend somebody. Glad you guys took it in stride.

Experiences with God can be emotional indeed… but what people don’t realize is that God’s love isn’t just emotional. The dry parts of a person’s life still has God’s love in it even though they “feel” like He isn’t there.

And one other thing… what exactly is holding you back from the belief of God?
if you don’t mind me asking

Lots and lots of stuff. The two main things are, not necessarily in order:

1. so many religions in the world, different denominations, even different conceptions of God (or gods) within a religion. People’s beliefs are often just bc of where they were raised (Middle East - Muslim, India - Hindu, etc) which tells me belief in God (in a given religion) is more of a cultural phemonemon than factual. Honestly, the more ridiculous religions out there spoil the arguments of the more reasonable ones bc they think they are right and you think you’re right so IMHO no one’s right! And yes that is just my humble opinion, I am not saying I’m right. I’m saying I don’t know, I think it’s unknowable (bc pretty much all religions think God is invisible), and sorry I just can’t believe in something invisible that no one agrees on its attributes! Like gravity is invisible but I don’t deny that bc we can all describe it and agree.
2. As I mentioned before, the start of the universe is a bit perplexing (talk about unknowable!). I have no problem with there being like a force that started it. A nonsentient force though. I do not accept that a sentient being could exist but be immaterial. Sentient beings are the result of evolution, made of molecules. No way no how can something invisible and immaterial be capable of intelligence (or stupidity for that matter), thinking, purposeful activity, etc. :dts: That concept is unacceptable to me and totally unbelievable.

 

[Neildown]

Whew, :coolinoff: I was worried I might offend somebody. Glad you guys took it in stride.

Well, I’ve raised the same objection myself - it is disconcerting to see people mistake emotional highs for messages from God. I mean, it’s fine if people are happy and worship God, but I don’t think one should need to work him/her self up to do so.

1. so many religions in the world, different denominations, even different conceptions of God (or gods) within a religion. People’s beliefs are often just bc of where they were raised (Middle East - Muslim, India - Hindu, etc) which tells me belief in God (in a given religion) is more of a cultural phemonemon than factual. Honestly, the more ridiculous religions out there spoil the arguments of the more reasonable ones bc they think they are right and you think you’re right so IMHO no one’s right! And yes that is just my humble opinion, I am not saying I’m right. I’m saying I don’t know, I think it’s unknowable (bc pretty much all religions think God is invisible), and sorry I just can’t believe in something invisible that no one agrees on its attributes! Like gravity is invisible but I don’t deny that bc we can all describe it and agree.

Same here. I believe that both faith and logic would point towards whatever religion is the truth, and I, personally, found the RCC to be that one so far. I’m still open to adverse opinions, but at this point in life I do have complete confidence in the RCC.

1. As I mentioned before, the start of the universe is a bit perplexing (talk about unknowable!). I have no problem with there being like a force that started it. A nonsentient force though. I do not accept that a sentient being could exist but be immaterial. Sentient beings are the result of evolution, made of molecules. No way no how can something invisible and immaterial be capable of intelligence (or stupidity for that matter), thinking, purposeful activity, etc. :dts: That concept is unacceptable to me and totally unbelievable.

This is one part where I raised objections while pondering atheism vs. Catholicism. Because we truly have no evidence, we truly have no idea where our world, universe, or dimension/reality itself came from - so being alive, in itself, is an absolutely unfathomable, perplexing thing. However, from my perspective, I see our sentience and our existence as a testament to the likelihood of a higher being with a higher sentience. After all, there is no doubt we are limited beings, confined by our environment, so I see no reason why it would be outlandish to assume there are greater things beyond our scope.

Sorry if I’m rambling - I’m not trying to start a debate either. I can’t resist contributing to these types of discussions.

 

[Bballer32]

1. As I mentioned before, the start of the universe is a bit perplexing (talk about unknowable!). I have no problem with there being like a force that started it. A nonsentient force though. I do not accept that a sentient being could exist but be immaterial. Sentient beings are the result of evolution, made of molecules. No way no how can something invisible and immaterial be capable of intelligence (or stupidity for that matter), thinking, purposeful activity, etc. :dts: That concept is unacceptable to me and totally unbelievable.

See, this is a good thought but as my science teachers and other scientists have said, it is impossible to make inorganic materials organic. That’s why there are different science groups that are based on organic and inorganic. Since the big bang theory (and others alike) say that inorganic objects (i.e. rocks and energy) created everything; inorganic and organic alike. But yet with our highest and most powerful machines that can split atoms and what not cannot convert inorganic matter to organic matter. That would require cells and complexity.

also the origin of order is what the deeper reasons of the existence of God exist.

And once God is found to exist, then you can go about the different religions and see which one makes the most logical sense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It hasn’t convinced me of it. Actually, I don’t see that many threads on just the subject of God’s existence. Mostly I see threads that are about some of the more tangental aspects of that question such as the objectivity of morality, various issues regarding epistemology, and other related things rather than the main issue.

That is true. This Forum is for Philosophical questions in general. It is not a Forum specifically for philosophical " proofs " for the existence of God. Right now there isn’t an active thread of this type. But a few months ago there were several.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The debate concerning the existence of God is one of the oldest and most discussed debates in human history. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years. In philosophical terms, such arguments involve primarily the disciplines of epistemology (the nature and scope of knowledge) and ontology (study of the nature of being, existence, or reality) and also the theory of value, since concepts of perfection are connected to notions of God. A wide variety of arguments exist which can be categorized as metaphysical, logical, empirical, or subjective. The existence of God is subject to lively debate in philosophy, the philosophy of religion, and popular culture.

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that would now be categorized as cosmological. Later, Epicurus formulated the problem of evil: if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? The field of theodicy arose from attempts to answer this question. Other arguments for the existence of God have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. Thinkers who have provided arguments against the existence of God include David Hume, Kant, Nietzsche and Bertrand Russell. In modern culture, the question of God’s existence has been discussed by philosophers and scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga.

Atheists maintain that arguments for the existence of God provide insufficient reason to believe. Additionally, some contend that it is possible to affirmatively disprove the existence of God, or of certain characteristics traditionally attributed to God. Fideists acknowledge that belief in the existence of God may not be amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. The Catholic Church maintains that knowledge of the existence of God is available in the “natural light of human reason” alone. Other religions, such as Buddhism, do not concern themselves with the existence of gods at all.

:angel1:

Well said indeed. May we use this in the future?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oops…you are totally right. The emotional stuff is not so much in the philosophy forum. I was thinking CAF in general. :doh2:
Ok here is my revised answer.
CAF members who frequent the philosophy forum have a more reasonable belief in God than some of those in the other forums.
Better?

The thing is, y’all’s god seems different from their god. It seems like you have different understandings/conceptions of God. Also, the other forums talk about Jesus a lot more ( Jesus awwww ) whereas here you guys talk about deeper stuff and don’t seem totally cuckoo. Y’all actually have good points sometimes, even though they don’t convince me. They are okay. Sometimes.

You will get a much better idea what the " faith thing " is if you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. Neither of these a the least " gushy, " which, by the way, turns me off severly as well. It is true there are moments, not long, when the Holy Spirit consoles the soul by filling it with a sense of rightness, comfort, and well being. And is somewhat like the filling you have being in the company of a good friend and just basking in friendship and comfort without even talking. But this is rather rare for most.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM ( Catechism )

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I’ve raised the same objection myself - it is disconcerting to see people mistake emotional highs for messages from God. I mean, it’s fine if people are happy and worship God, but I don’t think one should need to work him/her self up to do so.

Same here. I believe that both faith and logic would point towards whatever religion is the truth, and I, personally, found the RCC to be that one so far. I’m still open to adverse opinions, but at this point in life I do have complete confidence in the RCC.

This is one part where I raised objections while pondering atheism vs. Catholicism. Because we truly have no evidence, we truly have no idea where our world, universe, or dimension/reality itself came from - so being alive, in itself, is an absolutely unfathomable, perplexing thing. However, from my perspective, I see our sentience and our existence as a testament to the likelihood of a higher being with a higher sentience. After all, there is no doubt we are limited beings, confined by our environment, so I see no reason why it would be outlandish to assume there are greater things beyond our scope.

Sorry if I’m rambling - I’m not trying to start a debate either. I can’t resist contributing to these types of discussions.

Ramble all you want. Have you read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He is a former Atheist, now a Catholic, teaching and writing philosophy. You may be able to find it in a library. If not, and you are interested in philosophy, it costs about $18. He is pretty scrappy so prepare yourself.

 

[samiam1611]

See, this is a good thought but as my science teachers and other scientists have said, it is impossible to make inorganic materials organic. That’s why there are different science groups that are based on organic and inorganic. Since the big bang theory (and others alike) say that inorganic objects (i.e. rocks and energy) created everything; inorganic and organic alike. But yet with our highest and most powerful machines that can split atoms and what not cannot convert inorganic matter to organic matter. That would require cells and complexity.

also the origin of order is what the deeper reasons of the existence of God exist.

And once God is found to exist, then you can go about the different religions and see which one makes the most logical sense.

That is incorrect. It used to be thought to be impossible to make something organic from something inorganic. That is not the case anymore. That theory (vitalism) was disproved in 1828 with the synthesis of Urea, an organic substance, from inorganic substances.