Question from an athiest

[tdgesq]

Yes, I do think it is possible for god to exist, but I don’t think it is probable or plausible.

Fair enough. I would say that you are an agnostic then. There are actually quite a few agnostics on this forum. You aren’t asserting that you can prove God does not exist, just that you haven’t been provided with evidence that would lead you to believe that his existence is probable. So I’ll take your posts as a challenge to theists to provide evidence that God exists. First of all though, I need to know what kind or type of evidence you would accept. Just a very general outline so that maybe I can provide something meaningful.

 

[R_McGeddon]

So where did the original state of existence come from?

Nobody actually knows the answer to this and I’m quite comfortable with that lack of knowledge.

You don’t seem to be making any progress here…

Just like everyone else here, opinions and beliefs are just that, not progress.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Yes, I do think it is possible for god to exist, but I don’t think it is probable or plausible.

Do you realize that the minute you say this, the only rational thing you can do is to believe in God and live your life accordingly?

I take it then, that you believe that if someone thinks it is possible for God not to exist, the only rational thing to do is not to believe in God? Because that is your exact logic, only reversed.

 

[freesoulhope]

Yes, I do think it is possible for god to exist, but I don’t think it is probable or plausible.

There handing out words like probable or plausible like sweeties these days. You see, thats all good and well saying that something isn’t pluasible, but can you please show us the evidence ( whether philosophical, scientific or otherwise) that leads you to think that Gods existents isnt pluasible or probable; then we can at least have a fair chance to adress the case, and see if you have a point. Better that rather then make a claim with out backing it up with some reason or other.

 

[redhen]

Hmmm…

What examples of reasoning, specifically, did you find “bad”?

I’m curious because I have an odd feeling that you had some preconceptions that colored what you were reading.

I’ve read most of C.S. Lewis’ books, Mere Christianity is filled with non sequiturs. He tries to argue for an objective morality (which is impossible to prove). He argues that the “natural law” of the ancients is a moral law imprinted in all humans, and thus must be divine.

He doesn’t seriously consider any alternatives. He was brought up in the Victorian era and therefore has a stong sense of “decent behaviour” epitomized by Lord Baden Powell and the Boy Scout movement. He sees this as natural and wholly correct.

His biased upbringing clouds his thinking.

Without external forces man would exist like any other large mammal. feralchildren.com/en/index.php

 

[freesoulhope]

.

Without external forces man would exist like any other large mammal. feralchildren.com/en/index.php

OOOH i seee! So, with out any “intervention”, human beings would be like any other large mammal! hmmmmm how intresting that you should say that!

You have just offered a good proof for the existents and necessity of a moral God; but ill let you work it out for your self why that is .

 

[VociMike]

I take it then, that you believe that if someone thinks it is possible for God not to exist, the only rational thing to do is not to believe in God? Because that is your exact logic, only reversed.

Not at all. “Reversed” logic doesn’t work like reversing the polarity of a battery. The possibility that something (God) does not exist carries with it the possibility that it (God) does exist, thus bringing us back to the rational necessity of believing in God and living accordingly.

 

[Philthy]

In that case, where did the creator come from?

Good question, but who said He had to come from somewhere? And where would that “somewhere” have come from? The answer is that He didnt come from anywhere - He is existence itself.

If God is not created, therefore he does not exist.

This is certainly true** if** you posit that existence requires creation, but I don’t. Care to prove it?

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by R McGeddon forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I take it then, that you believe that if someone thinks it is possible for God not to exist, the only rational thing to do is not to believe in God? Because that is your exact logic, only reversed.

Not at all. “Reversed” logic doesn’t work like reversing the polarity of a battery. The possibility that something (God) does not exist carries with it the possibility that it (God) does exist, thus bringing us back to the rational necessity of believing in God and living accordingly.

Could I just add something here? The reason why your “reversed logic” is flawed is simply this:

IF God does not exist there is no eternal consequence of infinite negative value offsetting whatever degree of uncertainty exists in the original premise. Therefore, whether you believe or not does not matter significantly and the consequence of either belief does not outweigh the degree of uncertainty in your belief. On the other hand,
IF God does exist, there are eternal consequences of INFINITE VALUE which offset the degree of uncertainty to which the atheist asserts to the premise that God exists. Big difference! That makes it irrational to behave as if God does not exist - even if you are inclined to believe in atheism!

 

[R_McGeddon]

Not at all. “Reversed” logic doesn’t work like reversing the polarity of a battery. The possibility that something (God) does not exist carries with it the possibility that it (God) does exist, thus bringing us back to the rational necessity of believing in God and living accordingly.

I have to disagree with you on this, it sounds like you’re bending the rules to suit your argument.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Good question, but who said He had to come from somewhere? And where would that “somewhere” have come from? The answer is that He didnt come from anywhere - He is existence itself.

I could use the same argument and claim that the Earth wasn’t created, it was always there. I doubt that you would find that an acceptable argument.
"R McGeddon:

If God is not created, therefore he does not exist.

This is certainly true** if**

you posit that existence requires creation, but I don’t. Care to prove it?

What you are also saying then, is that mankinds’ existence did not require creation.

 

[VociMike]

I have to disagree with you on this, it sounds like you’re bending the rules to suit your argument.

No, I am simply pointing out that if “someone thinks it is possible for God not to exist” (your words) then it follows that that person also thinks it is possible for God to exist. The only way, based on my argument, that the person could rationally not believe in God is if the person were certain that God did not exist, not just if there were a possibility that God did not exist. The argument doesn’t reverse because the consequences are not “balanced”. If God exists then belief in God has an infinitely different (and better) consequence than disbelief in God. But if God does not exist, then belief or disbelief results in almost no difference in consequences while alive (and it’s not even clear whether belief or disbelief produces “better” consequences), and absolutely no difference after death.

The logic doesn’t reverse because the consequences of being in error are not mirror images of each other. To put it simply, if God does not exist, it really doesn’t matter if you believe he does or not, but the same is not true if he does exist.

 

[Philthy]

I could use the same argument and claim that the Earth wasn’t created, it was always there. I doubt that you would find that an acceptable argument.

You dont grasp the original causal argument at all if you believe that you can propose that a material being is eternal. Even science can reveal to you that this is not the case. If you don’t wish to consider the actual argument for whatever reason - then just say so, but don’t hide behind the pretense of logic.
rmcgeddon:

What you are also saying then, is that mankinds’ existence did not require creation.

Im afraid that you will have to be a little more articulate than this. I never said, nor implied any such thing. Man has existence and is created and therefore requires a creator. God has existence but is not created and does not require a creator. In short, creation is a subset of existence. Man belongs to that subset, God does not.

 

[R_McGeddon]

You dont grasp the original causal argument at all if you believe that you can propose that a material being is eternal. Even science can reveal to you that this is not the case. If you don’t wish to consider the actual argument for whatever reason - then just say so, but don’t hide behind the pretense of logic.

I said that I could use your argument but wouldn’t because, just like your argument, it doesn’t stand close scrutiny. I’m not hiding behind the pretence of logic, I’m just showing that your logic is flawed.

Im afraid that you will have to be a little more articulate than this. I never said, nor implied any such thing.

Yes you did, you said and I quote:

"This is certainly true if you posit that existence requires creation, but I don’t."

The statement above is yours, word for word.

Man has existence and is created and therefore requires a creator.

Man has existence but has it through evolution.

God has existence but is not created and does not require a creator.

This is not fact, it is faith. Don’t confuse the two.

In short, creation is a subset of existence. Man belongs to that subset, God does not.

There is a lot of rule bending to suit particular arguments here. I’m sure if I tried that tactic, I would be accused of being inconsistent.

 

[Philthy]

I said that I could use your argument but wouldn’t because, just like your argument, it doesn’t stand close scrutiny. I’m not hiding behind the pretence of logic, I’m just showing that your logic is flawed.

Yes you did, you said and I quote:

"This is certainly true if you posit that existence requires creation, but I don’t."

The statement above is yours, word for word.
Man has existence but has it through evolution.
This is not fact, it is faith. Don’t confuse the two.
There is a lot of rule bending to suit particular arguments here. I’m sure if I tried that tactic, I would be accused of being inconsistent.

Once again, you have not shown a flaw in my logic. What you have done is questioned one of my premises (ie, that God exists but is not created). Big difference. And you did all this to justify your statement:

RMcG:

If God is not created, he therefore does not exist.

My original reply:

philthy:

This is true if you posit that existence requires creation, but I don’t."

remains perfectly valid with no rules being “bent”. Furthermore,
You have no more proof for your assertion that “existence requires creation” than I do for mine that it does not. Your argument does carry with it the liability of explaning away the first creation as never happening - that time, space and creation are one eternal event. Again, where is the proof for such an assertion? We have proof that our universe is not eternal. In order to deal with such a reality we have to “imagine” that our universe came from some other “reality” that we don’t know about. I call that reality God - you call it something else.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Once again, you have not shown a flaw in my logic. What you have done is questioned one of my premises (ie, that God exists but is not created). Big difference. And you did all this to justify your statement

It is seriously flawed, on the one hand to say man must have been created to exist, but that same criteria not applying to the existence of God, is a prime example of flawed logic.

My original reply
remains perfectly valid with no rules being “bent”.

It absolutely does not!

Furthermore, You have no more proof for your assertion that “existence requires creation” than I do for mine that it does not.

This I agree on.

Your argument does carry with it the liability of explaning away the first creation as never happening - that time, space and creation are one eternal event. Again, where is the proof for such an assertion? We have proof that our universe is not eternal.

I’m not actually putting an argument over, I’m just showing that your argument is an example of trying to have it both ways.

In order to deal with such a reality we have to “imagine” that our universe came from some other “reality” that we don’t know about. I call that reality God - you call it something else.

I call that “reality” unknown.

 

[freesoulhope]

It is seriously flawed, on the one hand to say man must have been created to exist, but that same criteria not applying to the existence of God, is a prime example of flawed logic.
It absolutely does not!

Im going to ask you once: explain why it is flawed logic, or apoligise for putting across a false sense of triumph.

 

[Philthy]

It is seriously flawed, on the one hand to say man must have been created to exist, but that same criteria not applying to the existence of God, is a prime example of flawed logic.

No it isnt, and your repeated, unsubstantiated (not even a basic attempt at a formal proof) allegation speaks volumes of the standard to which you investigate the truths you hold so dearly and the ease with which point to the perceived errors of those who disagree with you. The fact of the matter is that men are readily observed to come into existence and go out of existence - there is a point in time when they are created and when they cease to exist. Are we in agreement on this?
We cannot, however, explain the creation (ie the coming into existence) of the first man without a creator (force, entity, being, God - take your pick) and we wont be able to explain where that creator came from by simply postulating the creator’s creator without having to further articulate where the creator’s creator’s creator came from. This process continues ad infinitum leaving us with no understanding of how creation came to be. From this conundrum has arisen the concept of the eternal creator whose essense is existence itself and who was not created.
This LOGICAL result (doesnt mean it is true) has been called numerous things such as:
uncaused cause, first cause, God, etc etc. This entity, unlike Man exists but was not created. There is no rule bending, no double standards, no tricks up the sleeve, no “trying to have it both ways” and no “serious” flaws.

RMcG:

I call that “reality” unknown.

An impressive contribution to the search for Truth.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Im going to ask you once: explain why it is flawed logic, or apoligise for putting across a false sense of triumph.

I’ll say this once, if you can’t see the glaring contradiction in that statement, I doubt very much that you would understand the explanation.

If you perceived a sense of triumph from me, that is something for you to deal with. I didn’t imply or state triumph.

 

[Philthy]

I’ll say this once, if you can’t see the glaring contradiction in that statement, I doubt very much that you would understand the explanation.

Wow - you’ll only say it once? I know I’m scared now!
Im sure a lot of 5th graders might succomb to this weak attempt at discourse, but no one reading on this forum will.
After all, if it is “glaring” as you claim - why don’t you simply state your case? I took the time to articulate my postition for you - why should it be any more difficult for you? Is it really so hard or are you bluffing to save face? :ehh:
It looks to me as if you are afraid that your argument won’t hold water and you don’t want to look bad. :yup: