• 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!

There is no evidence god does not exist

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
robtex said:
The following is an excerpt from "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark" by Carl Sagan, a Pulitzer Prize winner and bestselling author. The "Dragon" is a metaphor for God.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.


footnote:
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html
Not sure how he answered it, but thanks anyways.

~Victor
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Ceridwen018 said:
How would you answer it, Victor?
Where the dragon is at?
I would say it's in everybody's mind. Some ignore it others are more receptive toward Him. Why some are and some are not is personal to everybody.

~Victor
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
michel said:
I think you are exposing yourself to eternal damnation, my friend; this is the upteenth reference you have made to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you considered that if such a being does in fact live, you are guilty of multiple blasphemy ?

Prepare to meet thy doom.......................
Ahh my friend from across the pond. . . what you fail to notice (not that it is your fault, it is very subtle and only a true beleiver can distinguish) is that in spite of all their similarities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only one I mentioned that in fact exists.

As I am a high priest of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I,personally am in the good graces of his Almighty Noodliness, while those of you who fail to convert will baste forever in the cauldron of tomato sauce reserved for the non-believers.

Repent, or forever smell of garlic!!!!

B.
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
robtex said:
Yea right Great theory and all there partner, but as a fellow Texan is there a reason why you are advocating italian dishes as opposed to the legendary Texas Jackalope? :D

http://www.sudftw.com/jackcon.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackalope

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/tall-tales/jackalope.html
LOL, all good references and at least as plausible as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, I admit. Sadly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster allows no other god's (or jackalopes) before him. Therefore, in spite of the fact that I admire your intellect Robtex, and am in total agreement with your post by Carl Sagan, it is my sad duty to release you from this mortal coil should I ever meet you.

Nothing personal, it is just my religious duty.

We can all agree that this is silly, no? Why on earth then, are there people in 2005 who actually do beleive that some entity that they can neither see, feel, taste nor hear is telling them to kill others for not beleiving in said unsee-able untaste-able etc. . . entity?

Amazing. Oh, and by the way, Rob, if you are ever up in DFW, I would love to have a beer with you, I can in the spirit of ecuminical togetherness put off your basting in the cauldron of tomato sauce for a while.

B.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
Amazing. Oh, and by the way, Rob, if you are ever up in DFW, I would love to have a beer with you, I can in the spirit of ecuminical togetherness put off your basting in the cauld
B.
I would like that too. I may be up in your area on busines next year. Keep you in the loop.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
nutshell said:
The only proof available is personal revelation.
I agree, Nutshell. Personal revelation is the only evidence for the existence of deity.

One problem with personal revelation is that the evidence is only compelling to the person who has the revelation.

Another problem with personal revelation is that the evidence tends to become interpreted in light of what we have been taught to expect it to mean. For instance, the experience itself might not, strictly speaking, indicate the existence of deity, but we nevertheless interpret it to indicate the existence of deity because we have been taught to believe that deity must be the cause of such experiences.

A third problem with personal revelation is that it might not be available to everyone. Some people might experience it, while others might not.

Finally, there is no reason to suppose that personal revelation is the same for everyone. Different people experience different revelations.

Nevertheless, despite all these and other problems with personal revelation, it still remains the only evidence for the existence of deity.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
Nevertheless, despite all these and other problems with personal revelation, it still remains the only evidence for the existence of deity.
In my opinion, to apply the term "evidence" to anything that is not intersubjectively verifiable is to render it entirely worthless. When speaking of revelation, I would much prefer to see the less restrictive term "justification" used in its place.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
In my opinion, to apply the term "evidence" to anything that is not intersubjectively verifiable is to render it entirely worthless. When speaking of revelation, I would much prefer to see the less restrictive term "justification" used in its place.
That works for me on one level, at least, because there does seem to be a crucial distinction between what is intersubjectively verifiable and what is not. So, as to not render the word "evidence" "entirely worthless", I'll try to remember to use justification or some other term in the future to refer to experiences which are not intersubjectively verifiable.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
JerryL said:
There is no "logic presented" vs "other logic". Something is eiter logically valid or it is not.
I don't get this. What are you trying to say.

JerryL said:
This would be the primary factual error. No being exists in the ming ;only the concept exists in the mind.
No, that is not the flaw. The question might be does God exist only in the mind and not in reality. Read on.

JerryL said:
Therefore, any attribute of the being which is concieved is irrellevent to reality. In order for attributes to actually have effect, the being in question must first exist.
Your proof is flawed in that it falsely asserts that someting concieved neccessairily exists. It does not, only th conception of it neccessairily exists.
Let's reformulate the description “that than which nothing greater can be thought of” as “the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater”. Now reformulate the proof as this:

(1) God is the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater
Now suppose that
(2) God is only in the intellect (i.e. God is thought of, but does not exist)
But certainly
(3) any thought object that can be thought to exist in reality can be thought to be greater than any thought object that is only in the intellect
And it cannot be doubted that
(4) God can be thought to exist in reality
Therefore,
(5) Some thought object can be thought to be greater than the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater [1,2,3,4]
which is a contradiction, whence we have to abandon our supposition that God is only in the intellect, so he has to exist in reality, too.​
 

mr.guy

crapsack
"any thought object that can be thought to exist in reality can be thought to be greater than any thought object that is only in the intellect"

A monk and a philosopher are walking to town, discussing reality while they journey.
The philosopher says: "Reality is entirely dependant on the mind; all that exists must be conceived of."
The monk stops and points at a large stone, "so that rock over there, it only exists in your mind?"
"that's right, because i conceive it, it is real"
"well, your head must get heavy supporting that rock!"

 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
I don't get this. What are you trying to say.
Logic is not subjective.

No, that is not the flaw. The question might be does God exist only in the mind and not in reality. Read on.
No. God does not exist in the mind. The *concept* of God exists in the mind. The failure to account for that distinction is the problem with your argument.

God is the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater
OK. Now prove this God-object actually exists, and not simply a concept of it.

God is only in the intellect (i.e. God is thought of, but does not exist)
Why would I assume that God exists in the intellect. At that point, I've simply assumed God exists (which is the question at had). I have a concept of God (which, BTW, is paradoxical under your new defintion), but I have no reason to believe such a thought-object in fact exists.

BTW, on the original topic, there's no evidence that evidence does not exist which proves God does not exist.
 

spdoulos

Member
It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on the nonbeliever; rather it is on the Christian. Objectively, I find there to be several rational evidences for the existence of God. By God, I am referring the Christian God of the Bible and all of His attributes. Of the various arguments for God's existence, which I am confident have been posted elsewhere, I will only post the Moral Law argument, followed by several "one-liner" evidences.



Moral Law Argument:



1) A Universal Moral Law Exists

2) A Universal Moral Law cannot come to exist ex nihilo

3) Therefore, a Total Moral Law must emanate from a Universal Moral Lawgiver



Universal Moral Law Exists:

We all agree that it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, cheat, et cetera.



Cannot come to exist out of nothing:

Self-evident. What about Social Convention? This cannot be true because we even object to certain societies' moral codes (i.e. a Nazi society). Furthermore, if our morality existed solely from society, by what basis or standard do we declare a society's practice unfair? No, while our moral values may pass through society to us (just as mathematics and logic), it does not originate from society, it must be emanate from a larger, more universal source.



Universal Moral Law Giver:

Since a universal moral law exists and it cannot come to exist out of nothing and it flows through society, but does not originate from society, the universal law must emanate from a universal law giver, a Higher Being who we'll call God. Futhermore, since God gave us a moral law to guide our minds and actions, God must have a interest in us and our well-being.



Icing on the proverbial cake:

Our conscious bear conviction when do something wrong (unless it is so repetitive it is seared)



Our need to fill our lives with something more. We are incomplete so we look for something more to fill our lives (drugs, beer (mmmm...), sex (woo-hoo), money, fame, et cetera), but each thing leaves us wanting more. The only thing that makes us feel complete and at peace is a relationship with God.



The complexity of the human eye, the precise location of the earth, and DNA.


When I objectively examine the evidence for the existence of God I find these arguments to be very compelling in light of the evidence against God's existence or in favor of another form of how we came to be what we are today.

Peace,
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I agree there is some evidence that a "universal moral law" of some sort exists, but I disagree that it must either come from society or from God. From what I've read in anthropology, there are few if any societies which condone stealing from members of one's social group, for instance. But an evolutionary biologist or psychologist would say that the ubiquity of such rules is due neither to society nor to God, but to a genetic component of our behavior. How do you answer this?
 

spdoulos

Member
Sunstone said:
I agree there is some evidence that a "universal moral law" of some sort exists, but I disagree that it must either come from society or from God. From what I've read in anthropology, there are few if any societies which condone stealing from members of one's social group, for instance. But an evolutionary biologist or psychologist would say that the ubiquity of such rules is due neither to society nor to God, but to a genetic component of our behavior. How do you answer this?
That's a good point, I haven't read much about anthropology so if you know any good books I'd appreciate it. Albeit, if it is a genetic component of our behavior, why is it so common among people? While I have not seen actual numbers I am sure that statistical probability of this common "genetic" trait existing in so many people, over such vast cultural differences, and such a long period of time is very minimal, if measurable at all. In other words, because the genetic trait (or component) is so common it seems to point to a singular source. Was that souce from one ape or does it make more sense that the source was universal moral law giver?

Peace,
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
We all agree that it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, cheat, et cetera.
No we don't. To begin with, the vast majority (vegan pacifists notwithstanding) have been pro-killing. "Rape" doesn't exist as a crime in many societies (including the Bible). I was just commenting yesterday that "don't torture things" seems to bo no more than a couple hundred years old.

There is no such thing as a "universal moral"... if there was, no one would do it. Since no such thing exists, the rest of your argument (though flawed regardless) is moot.

I can discuss evolutionarily why you are seeing many of the things you are touching on (general similarities in many morals, consious, etc).
 

spdoulos

Member
JerryL said:
No we don't. To begin with, the vast majority (vegan pacifists notwithstanding) have been pro-killing. "Rape" doesn't exist as a crime in many societies (including the Bible). I was just commenting yesterday that "don't torture things" seems to bo no more than a couple hundred years old.



There is no such thing as a "universal moral"... if there was, no one would do it. Since no such thing exists, the rest of your argument (though flawed regardless) is moot.

If there was, no one would do it? Well how can you argue that? If it does not exist how do you know whether or not it would be followed?

I can discuss evolutionarily why you are seeing many of the things you are touching on (general similarities in many morals, consious, etc).
The vast majority has been "pro-killing"? Please elaborate. "Rape" doesn't exist as a crime? Including the Bible? Are you going to substatiate these assertions or just let them hang?

If there was, no one would do it? Well how can you argue that? If it does not exist how do you know whether or not it would be followed?

Please do.

Peace,
 

spdoulos

Member
Top