Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[tonyrey]

We have been through this before, can you not find some new arguments, it’s the same old tosh over and over again.

The same old evasions over and over again…Anyway you’ve revealed your inconsistency.

 

[tonyrey]

I have pointed out on many, many occasions that there is no evidence.

You agreed that thoughts and decisions are evidence of a person’s existence…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Iam not playing word games. You have to establish what scientific method is. It just so happens that the paradigm which is generally accepted today comes from Popper. It may happen one day that, for whatever reason, somebody will need to be a rethink. Whoever it is who does the rethinking, he/she will be doing the philosophy you say you have no time for.

Well if that is the case then you can just call everything philosophy (though i would suggest that they are different disciplines, however that is a another debate). I tell you what, i will rephrase to keep you happy, when it comes to understanding the cosmos other the scientific method i personally have no interest in philosophy, for this method has proven to be far and away the best method for this task.

 

[wanstronian]

You agreed that thoughts and decisions are evidence of a person’s existence…

Don’t play silly games. Lots of things are evidence of lots of other things. None of them are evidence of God.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The same old evasions over and over again…Anyway you’ve revealed your inconsistency.

You would have to actually ask me a sensible question for me to avoid anything.

Claiming i must be mindless because i don’t believe in your god is not much an argument.

When you get to the nuts and bolts of your arguments they always boil down to this…

You don’t understand something, therefore “god did it”… Well that is fair enough, but you have to appreciate some of us prefer real answers.

 

[tonyrey]

    5.* Is it more logical to believe beings with knowledge and purposes are created by a Being with knowledge and purposes or by forces without knowledge and purposes?            *

The latter.

If you had no preconceptions about the nature of reality which would be more logical?

1. *If not why not? *
   Because there’s no evidence, nor objective logic, to suggest that such a Being exists.

Why doesn’t the existence of beings with knowledge and purposes constitute evidence?

All we do know about are the things we observe.

Is observation restricted to **physical things? Are thoughts and decisions physical things? Do you regard yourself as a solely physical **thing?

To reach a conclusion other than one commensurate with our knowledge of the Universe is nothing more than conjecture.

Why do you equate the whole of reality with the** physical **universe?

 

[wanstronian]

If you had no preconceptions about the nature of reality which would be more logical?

That’s an impossible question to answer. But my guess is that, like early humans, I’d be inclined to believe that anything I didn’t understand was down to some sort of supernatural force - most probably a sentient one, a god. Luckily these days we do understand much of the nature of reality - certainly enough to demand evidence when confronted by claims of supernatural entities.

Why doesn’t the existence of beings with knowledge and purposes constitute evidence?

For the same reason that the glass of water on the table in front of me doesn’t constitute evidence. There’s nothing about it that leads irrevocably to the existence of God.

Is observation restricted to **physical things? Are thoughts and decisions physical things? Do you regard yourself as a solely physical **thing?

Tough one - there’s certainly no evidence to support a claim that the intangible qualities of human consciousness are not the product of physical processes. Just because you can’t hold consciousness in your hand, or put it in a test tube, it would be premature to conclude that its source is outside the realm of that which can be theoretically explored using the scientific method.

Why do you equate the whole of reality with the** physical **universe?

Because, as I have explained to you countless times, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

You would have to actually ask me a sensible question for me to avoid anything.

You evade questions you can’t answer by rejecting them as “senseless”, e.g. “Mainly how and why are actually the same question”. Then you proceeded very obligingly to contradict yourself!

When you get to the nuts and bolts of your arguments they always boil down to this… You don’t understand something, therefore “god did it”… Well that is fair enough, but you have to appreciate some of us prefer real answers.

When you get to the nuts and bolts of your arguments they always boil down to this… You don’t understand something, therefore "I don’t know but science will explain it…eventually…"You have to appreciate some of us prefer real answers related to our decisions in daily life and our attitudes to others as persons rather than things.

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     
             *If you had no preconceptions about the nature of reality which would be more logical?*
                             That's an impossible question to answer. But my guess is that, like early humans, I'd be inclined to believe that anything I didn't understand was down to some sort of supernatural force - most probably a sentient one, a god. **Luckily** these days we do understand much of the nature of reality - certainly enough to demand evidence when confronted by claims of supernatural entities.

Does what we understand about the nature of reality justify us in regarding and treating others as physical organisms rather than persons?

Quote:
*Why doesn’t the existence of beings with knowledge and purposes constitute evidence? *
For the same reason that the glass of water on the table in front of me doesn’t constitute evidence.

Why do you put a glass of water and a person in the same category?

There’s nothing about it that leads irrevocably to the existence of God.

There’s nothing about scientific explanation that leads irrevocably to the non-existence of God. Nor is there any reason to suppose it is the only form of valid explanation.

• Is observation restricted to **physical *things? Are thoughts and decisions physical things? Do you regard yourself as a solely physical **thing?
  Tough one - there’s certainly no evidence to support a claim that the intangible qualities of human consciousness are not the product of physical processes.

What evidence is there that all intangible realities are the product of physical processes? Do you regard yourself as a solely physical object? If not why not?

Just because you can’t hold consciousness in your hand, or put it in a test tube, it would be premature to conclude that its source is outside the realm of that which can be theoretically explored using the scientific method.

Do you believe thoughts, emotions and decisions are the products of consciousness? Why do you believe the whole of reality can be theoretically explored using the scientific method?

                                            * Why do you equate the whole of reality with the** physical ***universe?

Because, as I have explained to you countless times, there is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Do you believe the whole of reality is tangible? Persons are bodies? Truths are fictions? Thought is a mechanical process? Justice is a human invention? Freedom and love are illusions?
If the whole of reality is not tangible why should tangible reality be considered to be more fundamental?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You evade questions you can’t answer by rejecting them as “senseless”, e.g. “Mainly how and why are actually the same question”. Then you proceeded very obligingly to contradict yourself!

Ok I’ll play, why does the earth orbit the sun? Why are polar icecaps melting? Why does the moon always face the earth? Why does the run rise and set?

When you get to the nuts and bolts of your arguments they always boil down to this… You don’t understand something, therefore "I don’t know but science will explain it…eventually…"You have to appreciate some of us prefer real answers related to our decisions in daily life and our attitudes to others as persons rather than things.

Really? Ok explain to me what you understand that “I don’t know but science will explain it…eventually…”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Freedom and love are illusions?

How exactly is love an illusion? The chemicals that cause it are very very real. Where is the illusion?

 

[mathematician]

How exactly is love an illusion? The chemicals that cause it are very very real. Where is the illusion?

The problem for a meterialist is that that kind of reductionism doesn’t work. Everybody knows what they mean by love, and they don’t mean the bio-chemical processes which may be observed to accompany the experience.

 

[AnAtheist]

The problem for a meterialist is that that kind of reductionism doesn’t work. Everybody knows what they mean by love, and they don’t mean any bio-chemical processes which may be observed to accompany it.

That seems more like a semantic problem to me than a fundamental one. Of course you cannot reduce love to the bio-chemical and neurologic process it consists of. You won’t see a forest in a chopped down tree either.

 

[James_S_Saint]

How exactly is love an illusion? The chemicals that cause it are very very real. Where is the illusion?

The “cause” of love has never been the issue. The issue has been “what love is”.

You would probably be tempted to answer, “an emotion caused by chemical reaction”, but I remind you of your own effort to get a real answer to a question of real definition. Saying that love is an emotion is much the same as saying that God is “really really big”.

 

[wanstronian]

Does what we understand about the nature of reality justify us in regarding and treating others as physical organisms rather than persons?

Persons are, as far as we can demonstrate, subsets of ‘physical organisms.’ So your question makes little sense.

Why do you put a glass of water and a person in the same category?

Why not? You didn’t mandate the basis of taxonomy. In the context of proof of God, they are in the same category, in that neither of them constitute such proof.

There’s nothing about scientific explanation that leads irrevocably to the non-existence of God.

Quite true. Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence to the contrary? Is there a teapot orbiting the sun? If not, why not? Where’s the evidence against it?

Nor is there any reason to suppose it is the only form of valid explanation.

Any ‘valid’ explanation has to be objective, consistent, repeatable. That defines the scientific method. So I think you’re wrong.

What evidence is there that all intangible realities are the product of physical processes?

None, there you go again asserting that anything without contra-evidence must be true.

Do you regard yourself as a solely physical object? If not why not?

Yes, I do, in that I believe my consciousness is solely a product of my physical construction. I don’t mind being proved wrong, but I don’t set any store in baseless arguments from personal incredulity, such as you promote.

Do you believe thoughts, emotions and decisions are the products of consciousness?

Aspects, rather than products.

Why do you believe the whole of reality can be theoretically explored using the scientific method?

Because how can you explore anything reliably unless you do use the scientific method? Any other method just produces subjective experiences and therefore cannot be said to constitute reality. Unless everybody’s reality is different, which makes a nonsense of the whole concept.

Do you believe the whole of reality is tangible? Persons are bodies? Truths are fictions? Thought is a mechanical process? Justice is a human invention? Freedom and love are illusions?

No. Yes. No (what are you on about?). Bio-chemical rather than mechanical. A human concept. No.

If the whole of reality is not tangible why should tangible reality be considered to be more fundamental?

Er, I never said it did.

 

[THERE_IS_A_GOD]

My favorite argument for the existence of God is my own near death experience at the age of 4. Prior to that experience I had no concept or belief in God. I was not raised in a home that practiced any religion. I had no sensitivities to the subject of religion or the existence of God.

After my near death experience that all changed. I came to know that God existed, and I was much more sensitive to the life around me and pondered how all things came into existence. From that moment on the world around me had meaning and purpose I never knew before. It had light I never saw before.

God brought me to my belief in Him. No other thing or person did this, only God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Persons are, as far as we can demonstrate, subsets of ‘physical organisms.’

Sooner or later you are going to have to understand that describing the empirical attributes of people, does not describe them in their entirety. A person whom has experience of being a person will have experiences that cannot be measured by science, and yet they are definite aspects of what it means to be a human being; a person. How embarrassing that you did not know this. How old are you?

 

[MindOverMatter]

When you get to the nuts and bolts of your arguments they always boil down to this… You don’t understand something, therefore "I don’t know but science will explain it…eventually…"You have to appreciate some of us prefer real answers related to our decisions in daily life and our attitudes to others as persons rather than things.

Very nice word play.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey Does what we understand about the nature of reality justify us in regarding and treating others as physical organisms rather than persons?
Persons are, as far as we can demonstrate, subsets of ‘physical organisms.’ So your question makes little sense.

Does it make sense to treat the people you meet as subsets of physical organisms? Or to regard subsets of physical organisms as having a right to life? Why use the term “person” at all?

*Why do you put a glass of water and a person in the same category? *
Why not? You didn’t mandate the basis of taxonomy.

The taxonomy you use is biological - which most people would regard as an inadequate category for a person.

In the context of proof of God, they are in the same category, in that neither of them constitute such proof.

We are referring to evidence not proof. Do you really believe it is as easy to explain a glass of water as a person?

*There’s nothing about scientific explanation that leads irrevocably to the non-existence of God. *
Quite true. Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence to the contrary? Is there a teapot orbiting the sun? If not, why not? Where’s the evidence against it?

Do you believe everything for which there is no evidence? Such as the origin of rational beings from irrational processes…

Any ‘valid’ explanation has to be objective, consistent, repeatable. That defines the scientific method. So I think you’re wrong.

Once again you are assuming that scientific explanation is the only valid form of explanation.

•                                         What evidence is there that all intangible realities are the product of physical processes?                                 *

None, there you go again asserting that anything without contra-evidence must be true.

I am asking a question, not assuming anything.

Do you regard yourself as a solely physical object? If not why not?
Yes, I do, in that I believe my consciousness is solely a product of my physical construction.

What evidence can you produce for that belief? How would you define a self?

*Do you believe thoughts, emotions and decisions are the products of consciousness? *
Aspects, rather than products.

How do think they are related to consciousness?

*Why do you believe the whole of reality can be theoretically explored using the scientific method? *
Because how can you explore anything reliably unless you do use the scientific method? Any other method just produces subjective experiences and therefore cannot be said to constitute reality.

When everyone has similar subjective experiences those experiences become objective evidence.

Do you believe the whole of reality is tangible?
No.

Then you are not justified in regarding physical explanations as the only valid explanations.
“I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” - Einstein

Persons are bodies?
Yes.

Why do bodies have a right to life?

*Truths are fictions? *
No.

Then truths must be intangible realities.

*Thought is a mechanical process? *
Bio-chemical rather than mechanical.

It amounts to the same thing. So you believe thoughts are determined by physical events?

*Justice is a human invention? *
A human concept. No.

What precisely is justice then?

*If the whole of reality is not tangible why should tangible reality be considered to be more fundamental? *
Er, I never said it did

Do you believe tangible reality is more fundamental? If so why?

I apologise for asking so many questions but it is the only way to clarify the issue. I don’t mind answering (or trying to answer) any you care to ask.

 

[tonyrey]

Very nice word play.

Thanks. I’m trying to demonstrate that it is more effective to confine ourselves to reasoning without adding irrelevant (and often disparaging) remarks. If an argument is sound it doesn’t need “bolstering”.