I agree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof of God!
- Thread starter usfan
- Start date
I agree.
usfan
Well-Known Member
I'm exhausted by the offtopic deflections and baiting!
Its a simple thread, that should not result in dogpiles of hysteria..
Evidence.. for or against the existence of God..
Got any?
No.
This brings us current:
Evidence for Theism:
- Personal experiences - Unverifiable and contradictory
- Human angst: Argument from ignorance
- Universal morality - False. The actual moral landscape is an argument against theism, not for.
- Intelligence - Argument from ignorance
- Human consensus - Argument ad populum
- Foxhole atheists - Argument against theism, not for.
- The Universe - Argument from ignorance
- Hysterical Hostility - Not an argument for or against theism. People are hysterical about all kinds of things, legitimate and illegitimate.
Evidence for Atheism
- Problem of Evil/Suffering
- Godless Moral Landscape
- Emotional Vs. rational reasons for conversion/religious belief
- Impossibility of concluding the supernatural exists
And I would also add:
- Divine Hiddenness: if the typical Abrahamic/omnimax God exists, he can settle all this squabbling by getting down here and showing himself undeniably to us. He did it multiple times in Biblical stories. The fact that he doesn't means either:
1) He's hiding, or
2) He doesn't exist
In either case, lack of belief in God (atheism) is the only logical conclusion one can reach until that God, if he exists, decides to show himself.
Last edited:
I'm exhausted by the offtopic deflections and baiting!
Its a simple thread, that should not result in dogpiles of hysteria..
Evidence.. for or against the existence of God..
Got any?
Don’t you recognise that I brought god close to defeat?
How?
Both arguments, as typically presented, are premised on the notion that the phenomena cannot occur naturally, and therefore God must be their cause. Textbook arguments from ignorance.
I will address your view of God in your thread (still have to watch second half of the 2 hour
lecture). I haven't forgotten you.
Both arguments, as typically presented, are premised on the notion that the phenomena cannot occur naturally, and therefore God must be their cause. Textbook arguments from ignorance.
I will address your view of God in your thread (still have to watch second half of the 2 hour
I know you do not think that intelligence has any other source than the graspable matter. I can debate on that. But that is not the point here.
Suppose you agree that intelligence is not from non intelligence. Then what is your objection if someone terms the source of intelligence as God? It is just a matter of convention. Why it is an argument from ignorance?
The point is that I don't agree that intelligence can't arise from non-intelligence. That hasn't been demonstrated. If you can't demonstrate that it's impossible, then you have no rational reason for believing so.
If you simply believe it because, for example, you don't think it's been scientifically demonstrated that intelligence did come from non-intelligence, that is an argument from ignorance.
Argument from Ignorance
Further thoughts on this:
The unstated premise here is that intelligence arose from something, intelligence or non-intelligence, right?
You asked me to accept the premise that intelligence cannot arise from non-intelligence. In addition, you want us to label the source of intelligence as God.
Therefore, we can conclude that this source called God is intelligent.
Yet your original premise is that intelligence must come from somewhere, intelligence or non-intelligence, and that it must come from intelligence.
So that leads us to the question: what intelligence gave rise to God's intelligence?
If your answer is that God's intelligence does not require an intelligent source, then you've just contradicted your own original premise, and the whole argument falls apart.
Okay. But since there has never been an evidence of arising of intelligence from non intelligent, is it reasonable to assert non intelligent source of intelligence?
Why is it difficult to accept that consciousness could simply be the fundamental nature of reality, especially in contrast to far less parsimonious postulate of a non intelligent source?
The bold portion is not my premise.
Are you using the words consciousness and intelligence interchangeably? I just want make sure we're talking about the same thing.
It's difficult to accept that consciousness could be the fundamental nature of reality because we have a ton of evidence to the contrary. All the evidence of neuroscience indicates that our consciousness is a function of our brain. We can literally cause changes to consciousness, in predictable ways, by altering the brain - up to and including stopping consciousness altogether. We can also look at studies of non-human animal intelligence, to observe and measure more primitive forms of intelligence, which become progressively more sophisticated in accordance with the size and complexity of the species' brain structure. We can observe inorganic material and observe that it shows none of the same signs of intelligence/consciousness. All this evidence leans strongly against the idea that consciousness is "fundamental" to reality.
If the bold portion is not your premise, then the entire line of questioning of where intelligence comes from is irrelevant.
Shad
Veteran Member
You can interpret it, or justify it how you wish. But i do not see hordes of 'Religionists!' ..
Move to a Muslim nation or American state in the south.
You have no standard of evidence then.
So does the amputated leg. It's a non-physical leg.
Since we are both atheists, what are we arguing about?
Sure, IMO.
How is it an argument against theism?
I suppose I should say, it's an argument against a certain kind of theism. If one's belief in God is the result of some traumatic experience or borne out of desperation/fear, then it's rooted in emotion (which preachers and apologists manipulate routinely), not reason or good evidence.
