No evidence for God - Critique of a common modern attitude

[synkross]

This is interesting but the thing is, no amount of evidence will be enough. Nothing will make them believe, Look at what happened with prophet Moses (P.B.U.H) , He showed so many miracles but the disbelievers still did not accept him and accused him of using magic. Guidance is only in the Hands of Allah and no amount of evidence or miracles will convince people.

I will mention some verses of the Quran regarding this:
(Surah Al-Isra: 90 - 97)
"And they say, "We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring
Or [until] you have a garden of palm tress and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance]
Or you make the heaven fall upon us in fragments as you have claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us]
Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read." Say, "Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?"
And what prevented the people from believing when guidance came to them except that they said, "Has Allah sent a human messenger?"
Say, "If there were upon the earth angels walking securely, We would have sent down to them from the heaven an angel [as a] messenger."
Say, "Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you. Indeed he is ever, concerning His servants, Acquainted and Seeing."
And whoever Allah guides - he is the [rightly] guided; and whoever He sends astray - you will never find for them protectors besides Him, and We will gather them on the Day of Resurrection [fallen] on their faces - blind, dumb and deaf. Their refuge is Hell; every time it subsides We increase them in blazing fire. "

-----------------------------------

So all a person can do is spread the message and that is it. Believe or Disbelieve, is not my concern.

 

[Lili-Chwan]

I think there are two great lines of thought that disprove your essay and compliment my own views of the subject:

First and foremost, the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is incredibly complex and can't be logically assumed in the argument you commented, and you used arguments in your essay that would disprove of the theory if you look at them from a different perspective, and that's mainly what I want to provide here. The odds of everything turning out so perfectly fine-tune are insurmountable, the very existence of DNA, a code, makes it so complexly astronomical that one can't even understand how it can't come from a creator. That is, in essence, what your argument makes: How can such astronomically minuscule odds ever came to be, if not by intelligent design. Well, to that I say, chance in an infinite world is infinitely more tangible than what you're used to, on the day to day bases, but all because your perspective is askew.

Someone has compared the odds for intelligent life to appear in the universe as akin to putting 1000 monkeys with typewriters and have them write out the entire works of Shakespeare, to which I say that, looking at it from a different perspective, any of its unique combination of 3,695,990 characters is a massively minuscule odd, but the fact is, they can get one 100% sure. It might not be the one you hoped it would be, but had you had absolutely no expectation over which of the unique combinations you wanted it to come out, you'd know that one would come out for sure, and even if it is gibberish for you, in an infinite amount of scientist there might be one that would not look at the gibberish as gibberish.

To make it even more simple, the odds that you were born are also minuscule. If we consider your parents alone, you are a combination of 1 specific egg and one specific sperm cell, out of billions of sperm cells that your father produces everyday. You can even go as far as to say that a specific set of conditions had to happen for you, out of every other interaction they had, to be conceived. What is fact is, from that interaction, you were born. If you look at it from reverse, and that is what your argument does, you can't possibly have been conceived if it weren't for the existence of a greater being, but the fact is, while the odds of you specifically being born are minuscule, the odds of someone, any other baby, being conceived from that interaction are much greater.

You were born, just like our life is fine-tuned, and those are very small odds, but anyone being born, or any other type of life happening, the chances are much greater, because there's no expectation. Only when you look at it from the reverse perspective will you abolish chance, when, in fact, chance is all there is.



Secondly, the idea that god is a being that transcends all material, time and space, is very interesting and quite frankly irrefutable, because it does transcend my ability to perceive it. In that line of thought, you have to look at the purpose of it. What purpose does it have to come up with an explanation that effectively can't be proven or utilized? If god is unattainable, there is no right way to adore god, for every religion would be proof that it does not exist, as per your essay, which I agree. If god is the cause, but god is not comprehensible, how is the argument that it exists purposeful for any aspect of our life? If your argument for a creator is that you can't reach it, only see logical explanation that, if things are the way they are, there must be something higher, then I counter with: And?

In your conclusion, your essay that would otherwise empower the theist to argument against the atheist's arguments regardless the lack of evidence actually proves to be the greatest argument against any and all lines of theism in existence. If god is all-powerful, any material proof will only prove him wrong, and if no material proof exists, and you live in a material world, there's absolutely no way for you to do something in this world that would do you wrong in the next, if that ever happens.

 

[Marin]

Spoiler

I think there are two great lines of thought that disprove your essay and compliment my own views of the subject:

First and foremost, the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is incredibly complex and can't be logically assumed in the argument you commented, and you used arguments in your essay that would disprove of the theory if you look at them from a different perspective, and that's mainly what I want to provide here. The odds of everything turning out so perfectly fine-tune are insurmountable, the very existence of DNA, a code, makes it so complexly astronomical that one can't even understand how it can't come from a creator. That is, in essence, what your argument makes: How can such astronomically minuscule odds ever came to be, if not by intelligent design. Well, to that I say, chance in an infinite world is infinitely more tangible than what you're used to, on the day to day bases, but all because your perspective is askew.

Someone has compared the odds for intelligent life to appear in the universe as akin to putting 1000 monkeys with typewriters and have them write out the entire works of Shakespeare, to which I say that, looking at it from a different perspective, any of its unique combination of 3,695,990 characters is a massively minuscule odd, but the fact is, they can get one 100% sure. It might not be the one you hoped it would be, but had you had absolutely no expectation over which of the unique combinations you wanted it to come out, you'd know that one would come out for sure, and even if it is gibberish for you, in an infinite amount of scientist there might be one that would not look at the gibberish as gibberish.

To make it even more simple, the odds that you were born are also minuscule. If we consider your parents alone, you are a combination of 1 specific egg and one specific sperm cell, out of billions of sperm cells that your father produces everyday. You can even go as far as to say that a specific set of conditions had to happen for you, out of every other interaction they had, to be conceived. What is fact is, from that interaction, you were born. If you look at it from reverse, and that is what your argument does, you can't possibly have been conceived if it weren't for the existence of a greater being, but the fact is, while the odds of you specifically being born are minuscule, the odds of someone, any other baby, being conceived from that interaction are much greater.

You were born, just like our life is fine-tuned, and those are very small odds, but anyone being born, or any other type of life happening, the chances are much greater, because there's no expectation. Only when you look at it from the reverse perspective will you abolish chance, when, in fact, chance is all there is.



Secondly, the idea that god is a being that transcends all material, time and space, is very interesting and quite frankly irrefutable, because it does transcend my ability to perceive it. In that line of thought, you have to look at the purpose of it. What purpose does it have to come up with an explanation that effectively can't be proven or utilized? If god is unattainable, there is no right way to adore god, for every religion would be proof that it does not exist, as per your essay, which I agree. If god is the cause, but god is not comprehensible, how is the argument that it exists purposeful for any aspect of our life? If your argument for a creator is that you can't reach it, only see logical explanation that, if things are the way they are, there must be something higher, then I counter with: And?

In your conclusion, your essay that would otherwise empower the theist to argument against the atheist's arguments regardless the lack of evidence actually proves to be the greatest argument against any and all lines of theism in existence. If god is all-powerful, any material proof will only prove him wrong, and if no material proof exists, and you live in a material world, there's absolutely no way for you to do something in this world that would do you wrong in the next, if that ever happens.

I think you're confusing something here. What you describe when mentioning the teleological arguments I presented here isn't really the conclusion of those arguments at all. You say the following:

"The odds of everything turning out so perfectly fine-tune are insurmountable, the very existence of DNA, a code, makes it so complexly astronomical that one can't even understand how it can't come from a creator. That is, in essence, what your argument makes: How can such astronomically minuscule odds ever came to be, if not by intelligent design."

It is the bold which raises concerns, for the conclusion that the odds impact the possibility of a conception isn't listed anywhere in the 2 design arguments. (I'm assuming you're reffering to both the fine-tuning one and the argument from inherent information interchangeably.) The closest thing that would come to what you describe would be the ages old Fifth Way from Thomas Aquinas' „Summa Theologica“ in that the mere possibility of a rival thesis to a designer would prove fatal. In contrast to that, the 2 arguments I've layed out here aren't saying that because something is improbable it is impossible or it didn't take place. Rather, what they're saying is that since it is improbable it is (per concept) less likely to occur than that which is probable, therefore it is reasonable to assume the more probable thesis is correct. (Ofcourse I see that my wording of the argument gives off a stronger feeling so I am to take blame for the misunderstanding.)

In an earlier post in this thread I've explained the role of circumstantial evidence in refuting the statement proposed by the atheist side and I believe the design inferrences I've proposed do enough to provide that. Indeed, simple possibility of chance producing the desired effect may leave the option viable for the taking, but it merely presents a rival option. Unless you could say that chance has greater probability of producing said effects than design (which I don't think you can) my point stands.

Another thing worth noting is that chance doesn't necessarily mean abscence of theism as the very notion of a deistic God (for which I am arguing here) doesn't imply resorting to any special means besides chance. After all such a non-temporal figure would have plenty of time to realize his intention even if it takes a lot of failed attempts (and let us note here that a deistic God need not be omnipotent therefore allowing for a possibility of error and miscalculation).

A second claim I find of interest is in the following paragraph:

"Secondly, the idea that god is a being that transcends all material, time and space, is very interesting and quite frankly irrefutable, because it does transcend my ability to perceive it. In that line of thought, you have to look at the purpose of it. What purpose does it have to come up with an explanation that effectively can't be proven or utilized?"

Now, I think I know what you mean by this but I feel obligated to ask; why do you say that? You say that since God is transcendant as is mandated by classic theism there is no point in using it as an explanation. You ask why would anyone want such a thing? Well, because you don't have much of a choice. Given that we are moving away from the 2 teleological arguments, to explain the existence of this world or the universe in general leaves us with no other options than those of a transcendent kind. You may not say there is a God in the classic sense, but you will non the less need to infer some sort of origin that would adequately explain it. Maybe you think such an explanation would be a multiverse, but again such explanations are just as unattainable for they are outside of the reality we're limited to since they are what actualized our reality.

From a purely explanatory perspective, I see no reason why God wouldn't be a useful explanation as it is merely one option in a greater collection which is non-the less collectively unattainable. (Ofcourse, I'm assuming that by unattainability you mean our inability to comprehend it.)

Things get weirder though, when you try to nullify religious faith on the basis that God is transcendant. You say:

"If god is unattainable, there is no right way to adore god, for every religion would be proof that it does not exist, as per your essay, which I agree. If god is the cause, but god is not comprehensible, how is the argument that it exists purposeful for any aspect of our life?"

This, I concede, would be true if we're talking about a non-interventionist diety such as the one proposed by various deists but since you're clearly mentioning religion (and deism is largely irreligious) the objection misses the point. It does so because in the Judeo-Christian religions such a concept of God isn't solely transcendant but also holds a variety of other traits such as being all-loving and as such wishing to reveal itself to us (which is at the end of the day the basis of all those religions – „the one true revalation“).

I will reflect though that even if I were to give you right about everything you just said, you've been largely focusing only of the teleological arguments but merely refuting those parts would only undercut my essay, it wouldn't refute it for you still haven't touched upon epistemic problems and contradictory nature of evidentialism and the worth of reformed epistemology that many theists would find especially pleasing. I therefore find your opening words pretty misguided.

 

[shelke]

1) All men are mortal
2) Socrates is a man
3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal

^ Going by this example you stated, let's see this:

1) People believe in God.
2) God is real.
3) Therefore, he exists.

How does this format work? Whilst it was a decent read (bar some really questionable use of terms), I believe this logic is a tad bit flawed. God being real and him having an existence are two different things. How will you separate between the two? It's a never-ending debate as anything can be real, but that doesn't mean it has an "existence" within the supposed laws of Time and Space.

Spoiler

I think there are two great lines of thought that disprove your essay and compliment my own views of the subject:

First and foremost, the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life is incredibly complex and can't be logically assumed in the argument you commented, and you used arguments in your essay that would disprove of the theory if you look at them from a different perspective, and that's mainly what I want to provide here. The odds of everything turning out so perfectly fine-tune are insurmountable, the very existence of DNA, a code, makes it so complexly astronomical that one can't even understand how it can't come from a creator. That is, in essence, what your argument makes: How can such astronomically minuscule odds ever came to be, if not by intelligent design. Well, to that I say, chance in an infinite world is infinitely more tangible than what you're used to, on the day to day bases, but all because your perspective is askew.

Someone has compared the odds for intelligent life to appear in the universe as akin to putting 1000 monkeys with typewriters and have them write out the entire works of Shakespeare, to which I say that, looking at it from a different perspective, any of its unique combination of 3,695,990 characters is a massively minuscule odd, but the fact is, they can get one 100% sure. It might not be the one you hoped it would be, but had you had absolutely no expectation over which of the unique combinations you wanted it to come out, you'd know that one would come out for sure, and even if it is gibberish for you, in an infinite amount of scientist there might be one that would not look at the gibberish as gibberish.

To make it even more simple, the odds that you were born are also minuscule. If we consider your parents alone, you are a combination of 1 specific egg and one specific sperm cell, out of billions of sperm cells that your father produces everyday. You can even go as far as to say that a specific set of conditions had to happen for you, out of every other interaction they had, to be conceived. What is fact is, from that interaction, you were born. If you look at it from reverse, and that is what your argument does, you can't possibly have been conceived if it weren't for the existence of a greater being, but the fact is, while the odds of you specifically being born are minuscule, the odds of someone, any other baby, being conceived from that interaction are much greater.

You were born, just like our life is fine-tuned, and those are very small odds, but anyone being born, or any other type of life happening, the chances are much greater, because there's no expectation. Only when you look at it from the reverse perspective will you abolish chance, when, in fact, chance is all there is.

Secondly, the idea that god is a being that transcends all material, time and space, is very interesting and quite frankly irrefutable, because it does transcend my ability to perceive it. In that line of thought, you have to look at the purpose of it. What purpose does it have to come up with an explanation that effectively can't be proven or utilized? If god is unattainable, there is no right way to adore god, for every religion would be proof that it does not exist, as per your essay, which I agree. If god is the cause, but god is not comprehensible, how is the argument that it exists purposeful for any aspect of our life? If your argument for a creator is that you can't reach it, only see logical explanation that, if things are the way they are, there must be something higher, then I counter with: And?

In your conclusion, your essay that would otherwise empower the theist to argument against the atheist's arguments regardless the lack of evidence actually proves to be the greatest argument against any and all lines of theism in existence. If god is all-powerful, any material proof will only prove him wrong, and if no material proof exists, and you live in a material world, there's absolutely no way for you to do something in this world that would do you wrong in the next, if that ever happens.

Excellent post. One of the best from NB. Thoroughly enjoyed the portion on "birth." It really is a small matter of odds.

Repped.

 

[Uzumaki Death god]

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.

There are two sides when it comes to Christianity (which is what you clearly have a problem with, and not The possible existence of a creator), there is Light and Darkness, good and bad, God and Satan.So before you continue your bashing of Christianity, do you understand the two?

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

There are two sides when it comes to Christianity (which is what you clearly have a problem with, and not The possible existence of a creator), there is Light and Darkness, good and bad, God and Satan.So before you continue your bashing of Christianity, do you understand the two?

Of the oldest story and most simple black & white concept of all time? Yeah, i'm familiar. Doesn't mean others have to believe in these concepts or play by God and Satan. There's no bashing here, saying that the existence of really, any religion condemns & hurts other communities for not aligning with their moral codes is a literal fact that you guys should be proud of.

Where are you going with this bc I think you quoted to the wrong reply- not one bit of bashing in there, just fear of and from what I know supporters of religion are capable of- within my society, news and history. Just raising a different viewpoint & giving context as to why the modern attitude is less favourable towards religion. Christianity's view of good and evil don't come into it.

 

[Marin]

There's no bashing here, saying that the existence of really, any religion condemns & hurts other communities for not aligning with their moral codes is a literal fact that you guys should be proud of.

@bold: This right here is heavily insulting.

Where are you going with this bc I think you quoted to the wrong reply- not one bit of bashing in there, just fear of and from what I know supporters of religion are capable of- within my society, news and history. Just raising a different viewpoint & giving context as to why the modern attitude is less favourable towards religion. Christianity's view of good and evil don't come into it.

I can't help but remark that you're somehow confusing justification with relatability. You keep saying that because a person is harmed by an idea then that gives a valid reason for holding a negative attitutude towards that idea. To this I say; ok.

I say it like that because it's miles away from anything discussed here. Holding a negative attitude towards something makes it somewhat "ok" to not want to have anything to do with that something. BUT, to dismiss that something as false or fallacious (even more so on the basis of an unsupported and a fallacious claim) is not "ok" in any sense of the word.

The reason for that is the fact that while not wanting to have anything to do with that which one percieves as causing pain to others is relatable it is not justification for dismissing that something. As I said in the previous post to you (and the point seems to have missed you) I'm not focusing on religion here (much less one that would advocate violence against minorities) but on a case for theism. So please, once again, take these topics to another thread for these things listed do not justify casual dismissal.

 

[nefraiko]

@bold: This right here is heavily insulting.



I can't help but remark that you're somehow confusing justification with relatability. You keep saying that because a person is harmed by an idea then that gives a valid reason for holding a negative attitutude towards that idea. To this I say; ok.

I say it like that because it's miles away from anything discussed here. Holding a negative attitude towards something makes it somewhat "ok" to not want to have anything to do with that something. BUT, to dismiss that something as false or fallacious (even more so on the basis of an unsupported and a fallacious claim) is not "ok" in any sense of the word.

The reason for that is the fact that while not wanting to have anything to do with that which one percieves as causing pain to others is relatable it is not justification for dismissing that something. As I said in the previous post to you (and the point seems to have missed you) I'm not focusing on religion here (much less one that would advocate violence against minorities) but on a case for theism. So please, once again, take these topics to another thread for these things listed do not justify casual dismissal.

you obviously are a man / woman with great intelligence / culture and with some level of wisdom. You read, listen, think, look seriously for answers. you read a lot, a lot a lot. at least that's what I think.

don't expect people that don't have the same level of intelligence and wisdom you have and that are not as cultivated as you are to understand the level and the implications of the arguments you lay. this, in fact is one of your imperfections, you're still human after all, you don't understand how other people don't use their brains the way you do.
hey, imagine you're trying to talk with a 4 year old child about the complex laws of the universe, he won't understand you. he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to do that, even though he's not aware of it (he doesn't have the intellectual ability to be aware of his lack of intellectual ability).

So just stop doing that, you're only wasting your time, you won't be understood. they just don't have the tools to understand.
but you rock, that's a proven fact.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

Funny how Bohr and Schrodinger found their experiments on quantum physics to be consistent with what they were reading in the Vedas.

 

[shelke]

Of the oldest story and most simple black & white concept of all time? Yeah, i'm familiar. Doesn't mean others have to believe in these concepts or play by God and Satan. There's no bashing here, saying that the existence of really, any religion condemns & hurts other communities for not aligning with their moral codes is a literal fact that you guys should be proud of.

Where are you going with this bc I think you quoted to the wrong reply- not one bit of bashing in there, just fear of and from what I know supporters of religion are capable of- within my society, news and history. Just raising a different viewpoint & giving context as to why the modern attitude is less favourable towards religion. Christianity's view of good and evil don't come into it.

You just described almost all ideologies that promote the concept of a banner or a group with an agenda and demand adherence with the said ideology; veering from them results in severe consequences; yet you singled out religion only. Well done!

 

[BlacLord™]

Aw come on! It can't be that hard to imagine a dude walking on water floating in the sky and giving people blessings. :kd:

The biggest problem is that some people think those feats make you godly. They need to say hello to RSBM Naruto.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

You just described almost all ideologies that promote the concept of a banner or a group with an agenda and demand adherence with the said ideology; veering from them results in severe consequences; yet you singled out religion only. Well done!

We're in a thread concerning religion, don't you talk down to me.

 

[shelke]

We're in a thread concerning religion, don't you talk down to me.

I am not talking down to you. But your post clearly took that route and it's a forum; anyone can be replied to. Also, you outright placed your so-called modern society in a dichotomous relationship with it and pretended that yours is somehow an exalted version of human transcendence from the horrors of religion. Forgive me, but I had to take this route.

 

[YowYan]

Funny how Bohr and Schrodinger found their experiments on quantum physics to be consistent with what they were reading in the Vedas.

No idea what you're talking about but it peaked my interest. Care to fill me in on 'the Vedas' and the experiments of the beforementioned names?

 

[Furtuna]

I don't even know why people feel like proving God's existence when you guys are supposed to believe in God. In m y opinion that's pure insecurity, trying to prove Atheists wrong by proving something.

I had a discussion similar to this a few days ago. I tried to use the natural selection Argument but a believer said that "natural selection could not exist without a creator".

I was like

You must be registered for see images

Why has everything to have a creator?
And why proving God's existence?

When you see the world from aspect of a true believer, you'll feel like saving other people from ignorance and guiding them to the path of truth.

You feel God's love.
You learn that he loves every everyone.
You try to help everyone to feel that love because you know how great it is.

There are so many ways to prove the existence of God but I'm not kind enough to write a dozen pages here and you won't read it anyway. For me, a world without God is an awfully aimless stupid painful abyss that's why, in person, I don't like anyone reach that kind of conclusion.


On the other hand, if you believe in one of scriptures like Quran, Bible, etc... you learn that God likes people guiding each other toward him.

 

[Furtuna]

No idea what you're talking about but it peaked my interest. Care to fill me in on 'the Vedas' and the experiments of the beforementioned names?

I think that refers to the experiment that proves part of us exists for ever even after death it wont fade. This is the most simple explanation so please read more here:


??????

You must be registered for see links

The Sun:

??????

You must be registered for see links

Live Pro News:

??????

You must be registered for see links

World Breaking News:

??????

You must be registered for see links

 

[Bling Kai]

All this talk and bibles of text when the real answer is, nobody really knows.

 

[Sagebee]

The biggest problem is that some people think those feats make you godly. They need to say hello to RSBM Naruto.

You must be registered for see images

Well alot of comparisons between jesus and naruto have been made

 

[BlacLord™]

I think that refers to the experiment that proves part of us exists for ever even after death it wont fade. This is the most simple explanation so please read more here:


������

You must be registered for see links

The Sun:

������

You must be registered for see links

Live Pro News:

������

You must be registered for see links

World Breaking News:

������

You must be registered for see links

The Sun and the Daily Express epitomise the worst of British newspapers, nothing but sensationalist babble. Even the last two links refer back to them. Totally unreliable.

Here's some of the finest headlines from them both:

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

 

[Marin]

The Sun and the Daily Express epitomise the worst of British newspapers, nothing but sensationalist babble. Even the last two links refer back to them. Totally unreliable.

One should be weary of dismissing something on the basis that the ones they've heard it from are unreliable. That's if you care for escaping the genetic fallacy.

There is indeed truth to what these articles state, the scientist Roger Penrose has indeed made similar statements (altough with a less religious tone as he himself is an atheist) and has published several books on his theory of consciousness such as The Emperor's New Mind. The thing is, most of the stuff he's actually saying has been met with less than favourable attitude from his fellow scientists. I myself believe that consciousness could basically be reduced to self-sustaining information, but to call it a confirmed scientific discovery is a bit too much.