Does God Exist: Maybe?

[fallingblood]

My position is that the evidence points more toward God not existing than existing. Would you consider this "definitive"?

No, I don't think that is definitive. You're not stating flat out that God does not exist (as if you could prove such). I assume that you would be open for a possibility that God exists, even if it is very small; in the same way that I am open for a possibility that God does not exist.

I see that very much like how I see Richard Dawkins point on the subject of God existing. In a recent interview, Dawkins stated that he was something like 99% sure that God didn't exist. However, he leaves it open. And I think that is the right position (leaving open the possibility for either stance).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you're missing the point of the OP. I'm not arguing that God exists.

I think the subtext is that you're arguing that belief in God is reasonable, or at least as reasonable as lack of belief.

This is how I summed up my initial argument: So what does this all mean then? I think it means that we simply can not know if there is a God or not. Sure, there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate, but I think they all fail for the simple reason that they have no evidence. Both sides are based on faith, and usually blind faith.

I believe that God exists. I'm not saying God exists though. I acknowledge that my belief in God is based on faith, not evidence. I wouldn't argue for either definitive; that God does or does not exist, as there is no evidence either way.

I disagree. I think there's evidence both for and against, but the balance points more toward "against".

My point then is that there is a possibility that God exists. There is no actual evidence against such a possibility.

There is also a possibility that God does not exists. There is no actual evidence against such a possibility.

In the end, both definitive stances are based on faith.

This gets back to why I was so picky about defining "God" earlier.

I agree that there is no evidence for or against "undefined thing with no identified attributes". However, I don't think that "undefined thing with no identified attributes" is what anyone is referring to when they say "God". When we start to add specifics to God, though, then I think we do find that there's evidence... mostly against, IMO. Even if we just assume the bare-bones attributes of God like "intelligent entity", I think the existence of God quickly looks less likely than the non-existence of God.

Or what about "object of worship"? Personally, I don't take "God" to mean "thing we would call 'God' if we knew it existed, but we don't, so we don't call it 'God'"; I take it to mean "the thing we refer to when we say 'God' now." IOW, in my view, anything that is unknown to humanity is not a god. This means that when we can point to a source for religion besides actual gods, it is evidence against the existence of gods.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

My position is that the evidence points more toward God not existing than existing. Would you consider this "definitive"?

And what evidence is that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't think that is definitive. You're not stating flat out that God does not exist (as if you could prove such). I assume that you would be open for a possibility that God exists, even if it is very small; in the same way that I am open for a possibility that God does not exist.

I see that very much like how I see Richard Dawkins point on the subject of God existing. In a recent interview, Dawkins stated that he was something like 99% sure that God didn't exist. However, he leaves it open. And I think that is the right position (leaving open the possibility for either stance).

Well, there's open and then there's open.

The analogy I like to use is the ocean: I realize that there's a small but non-zero chance that while I'm swimming in the ocean, by the random movement of electrons and atomic nuclei, an island of salt will crystallize beneath me and carry me out to sea.

... but I would never pack a lunch while swimming just in case I'm going to spend the day on a salt island.

My approach to God is kinda like that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what evidence is that?

When it comes right down to it, it's a few main things:

- the fact that my mental model of how things work (which doesn't include any gods) has very good predictive ability.

- the fact that human belief in god seems to come from other sources (e.g. a predisposition to Type I vs. Type II errors and a tendency to attribute agency to events a bit too much) besides an actual god.

That's the short version. The long version would be... longer.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well, there's open and then there's open.

The analogy I like to use is the ocean: I realize that there's a small but non-zero chance that while I'm swimming in the ocean, by the random movement of electrons and atomic nuclei, an island of salt will crystallize beneath me and carry me out to sea.

... but I would never pack a lunch while swimming just in case I'm going to spend the day on a salt island.

My approach to God is kinda like that.

You want a direct revelation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You want a direct revelation.

What are you talking about?

I don't want anything from things I don't think exist.

 

[cablescavenger]

I think you misread what I said.

My whole argument can be summarized as:

There is a possibility that God exists.
There is a possibility that God does not exist. (When I say God, I'm being all inclusive, as in I'm referring to any possible god).
In the end, if one takes a definitive stance, it is based so on faith.

I didn't misread you

Many supernatural objects from such as Gods, Unicorns, ghosts, monsters and fairies are supposed to have existed. We have written evidence of these only. As such they are currently just myth and legend.

I can choose to say:
"There may be some truth in these, but I do not know.
I will choose to believe them as true until such time they are proven to have never existed.
I should make clear to others that it is a myth because it is unproven, and as such it would be dishonest of me to teach it as a truth or push that belief on others."

or I could say:

"These are just myths, I am skeptical of their truth.
I will give the myths no weight at this moment in time and reserve judgment until they are proven to be true.
Once proven they can be taught as fact"

I would expect a beliver to take the former approach and a non believer the latter since the approaches support the decisions to either believe or not believe.

The problem lies in the consistency of approach.

You get the following scenarios with people that chose to believe the myth first:

• This myth is true because I feel it is believable
• This myth is true because lots of people believe it
• This myth is true and I will teach it as true to my children
• I believe in this myth but not that other myth which is not nearly as believable to me
• I believe this myth and anyone that doesn't agree is evil
• That evidence contravenes my myth (which I chose to believe until proven differently) so I will ignore the evidence and the anomalies it throws up and continue to believe the myth

You get the following scenarios with someone who chose to give the myth no weight:

• Why would someone ignore/refute the evidence without having taken the time to understand it
• Why are you insistent on teaching the myth to chil
• Why would you say it is true when clearly it is still in the legend category.
• Why can't I say a legend isn't true without causing you great offense?
• Why am I evil?
• Why do I have to spend my time learning your myth to refute it when it is still in the myth category and has no supporting evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Going back to something here...

The whole purpose of the OP isn't to prove that God exists. Just that a neutral position is the one that is supported by the evidence. The evidence being that there is none. So to either confirm or deny the existence of God, rests on a belief. I don't think either one is better. I don't think either one is more probable. I'm just saying that both are options, and if one chooses either one, it is more of a belief without evidence. And that is fine.

What's your position on unicorns?

... or more to the point, what do you think are the range of reasonable positions on unicorns?

I ask because it seems like it fits what you describe as well: it used to be a fairly widespread belief that unicorns existed, however, now we can look back and realize that belief in unicorns arose because of causes that have nothing to do with the actual existence of unicorns (distorted stories of rhinoceroses and unscrupulous people passing off narwhal horns as "unicorn" horn, mainly).

Today, we're left with a situation just like you describe: no evidence either for or against unicorns. What should a reasonable person do in this case?

I don't know about you, but my general approach to unicorns is to dismiss the possibility that they exist. It's not "denying" per se - I don't think that I need to "deny" things when they haven't been supported in the first place - it's just recognizing that there's no good reason to think that they might plausibly exist.

I am not neutral on unicorns. Am I being unreasonable?

 

[crocusj]

So what does this all mean then? I think it means that we simply can not know if there is a God or not. Sure, there are very intelligent people on both sides of the debate, but I think they all fail for the simple reason that they have no evidence. Both sides are based on faith, and usually blind faith.

Do I detect a sigh of relief here? Does not knowing then allow you to construct your own version of a god that nobody else can then bring down. Not being able to prove a negative is hardly an argument for something or else it becomes an argument for anything. With no evidence available at all how can you give the natural and the supernatural equal probability?

 

[fallingblood]

Do I detect a sigh of relief here? Does not knowing then allow you to construct your own version of a god that nobody else can then bring down. Not being able to prove a negative is hardly an argument for something or else it becomes an argument for anything. With no evidence available at all how can you give the natural and the supernatural equal probability?

Nope. No sigh of relief. And never did I give the supernatural equal probability. I'm thinking you came to this discussion with a preconceived idea, and that effected how you read my position.

More so, I'm not constructing a version of God at all. As I said in the OP, as well as elsewhere in this thread, I find doing so to be pointless.

 

[Thief]

We all want to know if God exist on our terms...objectively. We want the smoking gun. But maybe that smoking gun can't be seen objectively, maybe it can only be seen on a purelt subjective and personal level. I had a series of synchronistic events happen to me that point to God. The events weren't visions or voices in my head but real external events that pointed to God.

From another thread moments ago...I quote myself...

Observation as evidence?
How about an eighty year old man climbing a mountain.

When He gets there, he encounters a burning bush and a disembodied Voice.

Later He claims to have been in the presence of God.
He did want for nothing in the encounter.
No bread or water....forty days and nights.

Would such testimony be sufficient?....or shall we discount the word of Moses?....and the commandments he brought down from the mount.
(end quote)

This and other events have people involved to the point of witness.
Shall we discount the prophets?...
take your pick which ever you dislike or favor.

Some events are astounding....like raising the dead.
Shall we discount the event though there may have been witnesses?

Or shall we chalk ALL such story telling to one conspiracy after another...
generation after generation...culture for culture...century after century?

At what point will the call for evidence cease?
(probably right after your last breath and you stand from your dust)

For some...the personal event is quite persuasive.
I can't say nay....been there.
But for those who haven't been so fortunate....what testimony for them?
Are they not nay sayers by choice?
And if nay saying sets the spirit of heaven at a distance....
how then to close the lack of believing?

 

[fallingblood]

Going back to something here...
What's your position on unicorns?

I will address everything you said, but I'm just shortening them in order to save space.

There is one large difference between unicorns and God. That being that one supposedly exists on Earth (unicorn), and one in an undefined area some call heaven (God). If God was said to exist here on Earth, I would say God didn't exist then, in the same way I will say unicorns don't exist.

On the other hand, I would be open to the possibility that on some other planet, where life has evolved, there may just be a unicorn. I wouldn't rule it out completely, but I would say that both do not exist on Earth.

Which does bring up the point that some do claim that God is here and now. I personally think that is a misperception. It is a want for a transcendental being to be here, and I can understand that, but I don't think it is true. I think if there is a God, it does not exist here on Earth. It may be a catalyst for events in the history of Earth, but I don't think it exists here.

I think the subtext is that you're arguing that belief in God is reasonable, or at least as reasonable as lack of belief.

I'm not really saying either way. I would say that a lack of belief in certain perceptions of God is much less reasonable then a belief in said God. When people claim that God wanted them to kill, or some other evil act for whatever gain, I think a God like that is very unreasonable. When they claim that God is creating these natural disasters, and healing people, or the whole deal with exorcism, I think that is an unreasonable God to believe in.

Personally though, I think a lack of belief is probably more reasonable. Believing in God is a much bigger leap in faith. Especially when such a God does become nearly undefinable. And I say that because all (or at least most) of the definitions, or defining ideas of God are either unprovable, or simply are illogical (especially when they promote hatred). For me though, that leap in faith is alright, as long as it is done with some limitations.

 

[crocusj]

Nope. No sigh of relief. And never did I give the supernatural equal probability. I'm thinking you came to this discussion with a preconceived idea, and that effected how you read my position

.
Not at all. I just assumed when you said...

I don't think either one is better. I don't think either one is more probable.

...that you did give them equal probability. I'm sure you can see why.

More so, I'm not constructing a version of God at all. As I said in the OP, as well as elsewhere in this thread, I find doing so to be pointless.

I'm not saying your OP constructs a god, I am saying that it affords you a kind of comfort zone in which a god of almost any discription can be built. A god that fits. In doing this does this not prejudice your take on evidence?

 

[fallingblood]

.
Not at all. I just assumed when you said...
...that you did give them equal probability. I'm sure you can see why.


I'm not saying your OP constructs a god, I am saying that it affords you a kind of comfort zone in which a god of almost any discription can be built. A god that fits. In doing this does this not prejudice your take on evidence?

Actually, with my idea of God, one could not build any description of God. Primarily because I acknowledge that a description can not be supported with evidence. Thus, any actual description will be unsupportable at the current time. So to draw up a description will become, for the most part (besides the most vague of notions) would be pointless.

More so, because we an observe our natural world, and see that many descriptions of God simply do not add up, one can not make up just anything with any credibility. That is why I left my description, which was hardly a description at all, very vague.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will address everything you said, but I'm just shortening them in order to save space.

There is one large difference between unicorns and God. That being that one supposedly exists on Earth (unicorn), and one in an undefined area some call heaven (God). If God was said to exist here on Earth, I would say God didn't exist then, in the same way I will say unicorns don't exist.

On the other hand, I would be open to the possibility that on some other planet, where life has evolved, there may just be a unicorn. I wouldn't rule it out completely, but I would say that both do not exist on Earth.

You make God sound like Russell's Teapot.

Is it not a problem to you if your god is irrelevant?

Which does bring up the point that some do claim that God is here and now. I personally think that is a misperception. It is a want for a transcendental being to be here, and I can understand that, but I don't think it is true. I think if there is a God, it does not exist here on Earth. It may be a catalyst for events in the history of Earth, but I don't think it exists here.

I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. I think it's a necessary given that any hypothetical God must exist on Earth in some sense, or at least interact with humanity. As I touched on before, whenever someone says "God", they necessarily don't mean "a god who's never had anything to do with humanity", because it would be impossible for them to know about such a god.

I'm not really saying either way. I would say that a lack of belief in certain perceptions of God is much less reasonable then a belief in said God. When people claim that God wanted them to kill, or some other evil act for whatever gain, I think a God like that is very unreasonable. When they claim that God is creating these natural disasters, and healing people, or the whole deal with exorcism, I think that is an unreasonable God to believe in.

Why would you say that? I think a lot of those sorts of versions of Gods are actually the product of exercises in logic: they start with the same premises that the people who believe in the "nice" Gods believe in, but unlike the believers in the "nice" Gods, they refuse to set those premises aside when they create implications that reflect badly on the character of their God.

IMO, it's usually the believers in the nice, "touchy-feely" versions of God that have bigger problems with logical consistency.

Take Calvinism: it paints a cruel picture of God, but AFAICT, it's logically consistent.

Internally, anyhow.

Personally though, I think a lack of belief is probably more reasonable. Believing in God is a much bigger leap in faith. Especially when such a God does become nearly undefinable. And I say that because all (or at least most) of the definitions, or defining ideas of God are either unprovable, or simply are illogical (especially when they promote hatred). For me though, that leap in faith is alright, as long as it is done with some limitations.

I think it's logically untenable. We deal with objects (e.g. gods) through concepts we create to represent them. If you're arguing that God is completely inconceivable, then you're effectively arguing that meaningful communication about God is impossible.

It's like you're declaring God to be the unmappable territory, then slapping the symbol "God" on your own map saying "there it is!"

If you can't even define a concept at all, then you can't say anything meaningful about that concept at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

If you can't even define a concept at all, then you can't say anything meaningful about that concept at all.

Including that it's undefinable.

 

[Zantiax]

Including that it's undefinable.

Yeah, and 'nothing' is something

 

[McBell]

Including that it's undefinable.

how is claiming something to be undefinable meaningful?

 

[Zantiax]

Everything is definable. If something is 'not definable', everyone would think of it as something else and therefor noone knows what we're talking about.