No evidence for God - Critique of a common modern attitude

[Kishi Uzumaki]

In old times even men with power who did things that's beyond normal people's expectations and imagination has been considered to be gods my friend .

 

[Punk Hazard]

How to spot ignorance: The phrase "it's just a theory."

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

Well, you got something out of it so its not a waste.

Besides, no opposition is best opposition no?

You right. I'm probably gonna have to read the whole thing when I have spare time.

 

[Cornson]

I am pretty sure that even if god did not exist so many people focusing their prayers on something would create god.

what you are refearing to is a Tulpa.

You must be registered for see links

 

[kimb]

I intended to make a reply with as much effort and outside source information as yours does, but I don't have the time to complete one within a posting time period that would be relevant, nor the patience. Finals are coming, my boy. I gotta prepare or else these exams are going to snatch my soul straight out of my ass with an extendo.

But, I wanted to give my perspective on some of the points you made. To give some context, I indentify as an agnostic, so I speak from the middle of the aisle when I say "there is no evidence for god". Though, I accept the possibility of there being a god(s) as accept science with the chance of uncertainity, I do believe with the evidence provided within the world of science, the chance of there being a god is highly unlikely.

You cited the Kalam C. argument (which is almost used as often as the "no evidence" argument in debates and among well versed theist) which states: 1. whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. the universe began to exist, and 3. therefore, universe has a cause. But stating there is a cause to universe does not equate to there being a God or lead to the natural conclusion that the existence of the universe caused at the hands of God. The argument itself can be used to argue the possibility of a God, but in no way acts as evidence of God. Of course, if I put God in the placeholder of the argument, it sounds flawed;

1. God created the universe
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore, God exists

I'll finish responding to your second argument when (and if) I find time.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

When the existence of religion kills people, starts wars & pushes human rights centuries back then i'm gonna need some solid proof to support it, sorry.

 

[Deadlift]

I intended to make a reply with as much effort and outside source information as yours does, but I don't have the time to complete one within a posting time period that would be relevant, nor the patience. Finals are coming, my boy. I gotta prepare or else these exams are going to snatch my soul straight out of my ass with an extendo.

But, I wanted to give my perspective on some of the points you made. To give some context, I indentify as an agnostic, so I speak from the middle of the aisle when I say "there is no evidence for god". Though, I accept the possibility of there being a god(s) as accept science with the chance of uncertainity, I do believe with the evidence provided within the world of science, the chance of there being a god is highly unlikely.

You cited the Kalam C. argument (which is almost used as often as the "no evidence" argument in debates and among well versed theist) which states: 1. whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. the universe began to exist, and 3. therefore, universe has a cause. But stating there is a cause to universe does not equate to there being a God or lead to the natural conclusion that the existence of the universe caused at the hands of God. The argument itself can be used to argue the possibility of a God, but in no way acts as evidence of God. Of course, if I put God in the placeholder of the argument, it sounds flawed;

1. God created the universe
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore, God exists

I'll finish responding to your second argument when (and if) I find time.

I'm not very sure that the Kalam cosmological argument is so easily dismissed as the "no evidence" argument among philosophers. It actually had a boom after the discovery of the big bang refuted the idea of the eternal universe. This argument is actually universally recognized as a powerful one, by both theists and atheists (people like Michael Martin, Peter Millican Stephen Law and even non philosophers like Richard Dawkins - all critics of Christianity, agree on this point).

You have a point: The Kalam cosmological argument is not an argument for God-full stop. Its aim is to provide evidence for a creator of the universe. What it gives evidence for is a creator (because it created the universe out of nothing) who is spaceless (because it created space) timeless (because prior to the big bang there was no time), powerful (because it indeed takes a lot of power to create at least an universe) and immaterial, because it created matter itself.
What the Kalam is not an argument for are questions like: What kind of creator is that? Does it coincide with the God of any religion? What is the moral character of this creator? And so on. There are answers for any of these questions, and none of them revolves around the Kalam.

As for your last argument, I would say that it might even be good if it worked in reverse. Let's imagine a world in which we are not humans but disembodied minds who live at the presence of God and are aware of this. These embodied minds are arguing whether the universe really exists. The argument they ought to produce would be something like:

1) a full creator needs to extend his creation to both the material and spiritual reality
2) God is a full creator
3) therefore, a material reality exists ---> therefore, the universe exists

 

[Marin]

You cited the Kalam C. argument (which is almost used as often as the "no evidence" argument in debates and among well versed theist) which states: 1. whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. the universe began to exist, and 3. therefore, universe has a cause. But stating there is a cause to universe does not equate to there being a God or lead to the natural conclusion that the existence of the universe caused at the hands of God.

The argument, as presented here, indeed doesn't lead to a direct conclusion that God is the cause of the universe but rather that given the nature of the universe and what we know so far, the cause (whatever it is) would have to be one of a transcendent kind. The argument's purpose here is to merely illustrate that God fits perfectly in the category of things that could've caused the universe and is as such a viable option to take. But this doesn't mean we don't have evidence for God, on the contrary, this is a basic example of circumstantial evidence. (That is to say, we can interpret it in multiple ways all of which are, given the isolated case, supported equally by the matter at hand.)

Circumstantial evidence is more than enough to justify a belief and refute the notion that there is no evidence.

The argument itself can be used to argue the possibility of a God, but in no way acts as evidence of God. Of course, if I put God in the placeholder of the argument, it sounds flawed;

1. God created the universe
2. The universe exists
3. Therefore, God exists

I'll finish responding to your second argument when (and if) I find time.

Indeed the argument you just gave sounds flawed, but that's because it is a straw man - not at all an accurate presentation of the Kalam. Kalam (in the present context) simply infers that the cause of universe can be God. It's apparent to me that you're confusing this argument with a stronger version of it, one which would provide additional premises to eliminate rival options leaving God as the only one viable to take, but I have no need of that here. What I'm talking about in the OP is the casually dismissive attitude that ignorantly makes the claim of there being no evidence therefore rendering belief in God unjustified. I need not use a strong Kalam at all to refute this statement (in fact I didn't have to provide any arguments as explained later in the reply), the mere presence of circumstantial evidence (in part supplied by the weak Kalam) is sufficient.

You're wasting time. Anyone in a mood to kill an argument will tell you straight form the get-go "There is no proof of God". Even your lovely essay that I will decipher when I get my chance stands no chance against such words...

Anyone in the mood to avoid discussion will avoid discussion. That's a given. The point is that such cheap avoiding is dishonest and lazy.

When the existence of religion kills people, starts wars & pushes human rights centuries back then i'm gonna need some solid proof to support it, sorry.

Historical conflicts in which religion played a role speak nothing for the validity of theism. Even this validity (in general) isn't a matter of discussion here but a certain objection proposed to it.

 

[HashiraMadara]

Anyone in the mood to avoid discussion will avoid discussion. That's a given. The point is that such cheap avoiding is dishonest and lazy.

Nope it just causes buthhurt to the objector

On serious note, there are 2 kinds of people:
"It has more evidence therefore I believe in such and such"

and

"There is no proof for it therefore I will not believe it"

You keep intermixing the 2. All your arguments are in the mercy of "Is the person willing to entertain the idea of evidence or not"

You can even divide the first one into 2.

"one who follows and forms beliefs of supposedly "logical' positioning, e.g "existence with cause"

and

'it brings in no scientifically reaction therefore it's nothing but philosophy" <=== 90% scientist are here... They don't believe in existence without existence "meta physical", "miracles"... for example they believe in "I poke and it reacts regardless of its creation."


So that whole bulk of text you written will only entertain thoughts of 25%(1 of the 4 divisions) given the belief types and don't be naive to make them to prove you wrong first without you disproving their premises

 

[Nobel]

Basically: There is no proof for God= there is no proof of your own existence.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

Historical conflicts in which religion played a role speak nothing for the validity of theism. Even this validity (in general) isn't a matter of discussion here but a certain objection proposed to it.

I'm talking contemporary threats also, me and my community being harrassed and once attacked for my sexual orientation. When right-wing / religious people get power, people die. Because religious people can't seem to live without dictating or deciding the code and expectations of other people.

 

[Umari Senju]

People just read "No evidence of god" saw a wall of text and immediately when on the offensive as if the OP is bashing the belief in God.

I suggest you guys stop jumping to conclusions, set some time aside and read the post. It is an actual interesting read and not against the belief in God. Just sayin :bdpf:

 

[Marin]

I'm talking contemporary threats also, me and my community being harrassed and once attacked for my sexual orientation. When right-wing / religious people get power, people die. Because religious people can't seem to live without dictating or deciding the code and expectations of other people.

As I said such things aren't a part of the topic I'm discussing here, be they contemporary or a matter of times past.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

As I said such things aren't a part of the topic I'm discussing here, be they contemporary or a matter of times past.

...why?

I'm giving a pretty valid reason for this modern attitude.

 

[BLAZE]

People just read "No evidence of god" saw a wall of text and immediately when on the offensive as if the OP is bashing the belief in God.

????? OP is theist.People liking him are theist too

one of them also believe gay/homosexual instincts make person kill others

 

[Marin]

...why?

I'm giving a pretty valid reason for this modern attitude.

Why? Because this thread is my criticism of dishonest and intellectually lazy attitude (and defense of it for those who disagree with what I wrote) when it comes to truth of theism and not potential reasons why a person may hold this attitude. To make this clear, there is no good reason why one should make the statements I'm criticizing here just as there is no good reason to being lazy in general.

Even if you were to give me a valid one, it definitely wouldn't be what you've just proposed. If nothing else for the simple fact that idiocity of people doesn't negate the validity of a certain belief held by those people. There is simply no logical link between the two.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

Why? Because this thread is my criticism of dishonest and intellectually lazy attitude (and defense of it for those who disagree with what I wrote) when it comes to truth of theism and not potential reasons why a person may hold this attitude. To make this clear, there is no good reason why one should make the statements I'm criticizing here just as there is no good reason to being lazy in general.

Even if you were to give me a valid one, it definitely wouldn't be what you've just proposed. If nothing else for the simple fact that idiocity of people doesn't negate the validity of a certain belief held by those people. There is simply no logical link between the two.

...People being attacked for differences isn't a valid reason? The f*ck? Fear for your literal safety against people of this religion doesn't come under laziness or idiocy but nice try.

Sounds to me like you're just shutting down all chance for discussion or debating your rant.

 

[Marin]

...People being attacked for differences isn't a valid reason? The f*ck? Fear for your literal safety against people of this religion doesn't come under laziness or idiocy but nice try.

I don't know how simple I have to make my words for you to understand. I'll try to be even more clear this time.

This thread is about whether or not the statement "There is no evidence for God" holds true or is it merely a tool for casual dismissal and "winning" debates without even getting into any. It's not about effects of religion on the society and it's not necessarily about religion at all. Just look at the OP. The only arguments I present are those for a broad theistic belief, theism doesn't mean organized religion and definitely not Judeo-Christian religion which is what you have a problem with.

And again, no, being attacked by a bigoted holder of a certain view doesn't give you a valid reason to dismiss the view as false. Otherwise each and every view out there would be dismissed and no debate should ever arise on any matter.

Sounds to me like you're just shutting down all chance for discussion or debating your rant.

If you actually wish to have a debate on any of the matters you brought into question in your last few posts you're free to make a thread dedicated to them and I may (if I see something I disagree on) take part in it. I wrote the OP as precised and focused as it can be and I have no interest in derailing the thread into something that is a different topic all together just because someone can't make a difference.

Also, calling my thread a rant really does you no favour as it's no more than a critique. In regards to what an actual rant is:

You must be registered for see links

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

It's quite simple, you're criticising and nullifying atheists for the lazy assumption that God doesn't exist. I know, because trust me, I read it.

I'm not here to decide once and for all whether God exists on a Naruto forum, i'm just saying calling it lazy, idiotic or ignorant isn't fair to say when there are very genuine reasons to distrust/hate religion. This obviously helps forms the modern atheist view of religion. It's simple disconnection and can be out of fear, not just ignorance.

I misunderstood your point about attacks not being valid though, so sorry about that one.

 

[Firekeeper]

Even if god isn't a living entity, there are factors such as faith and hope that lead people to believe in its existence.