@Bartdogg
Not these bloody clues AGAIN! We've already had one thread dealing with these.
I'll go through them all again.
1: We need something to explain the creation of the universe.
This clue is based on 1 assumption, that complex things require an explanation. Otherwise there is no need to explain the Big bang and no point to this clue. However since God is a powerful and complex being (and he must be complex to have the creation and intervention duties assigned to him) he requires his own explanation to his own creation, one that is not forthcoming. Far from being "comfortable", the Theist has an extra thing to explain and a new and unwieldy loose end. Since you'll inevitably invoke something like "God needs no explanation, he is eternal", I'll cover it immediately. Any method of exempting God from the first assumption that things require explanation can be just as easily applied to the Big Bang by saying "The conditions needed for the big bang were always present before the big bang"

2: The improbability of the conditions needed to create our universe and our life.
Of course OUR universe is amazingly unlikely, but since we have no idea what the universe would be like had the constants been different we cannot assume it is barren and lifeless. More likely, many sets of constants produce new ways of ending up with intelligent life. For example if chemical bonds were weaker and heat therefore more disruptive, the band of safe temperatures would simply be further away from each star. It is like how each individual straight in a game of poker is as unlikely as each individual Royal flush, but because there are ways to create a straight than a royal flush getting any straight is more likely than getting any royal flush. Since we evolved to these conditions it is barely impossible for us to imagine the other potential results: of course this is true of the denizens of all resulting universes.

3: Without God we cannot rely on an ordered Universe.
Unravelling Hume's and Russel's argument that it is impossible to rely on past to determine the stability of nature is possible because the argument does not state that we cannot remember the past, only that we cannot rely on the future being the same. We know that the past has been stable for the entirity of living memory and have sufficient historical evidence to be convinced that it was stable for the entirity of human history and longer. Given this knowledge, we have 2 hypotheses, the null hypothesis that conditions fluctuate entirely randomly, and the hypothesis that conditions are stable. If the first is true then it takes an unprecedented amount of good fortune for our past to be as stable as it appears, implying that the latter is true. (I have dismissed hypotheses such as the stability of the universe being determined by the requirements of an indignant philosopher as incredulous). Of course you cannot prove that this is true, but it is confirmed within reasonable doubt.

4: The argument from beauty
The great beauty experienced from great art should never be attributed to God. To do so demeans the skill and passion of the artist: demeans Mozart, Beethoven, Da Vinci, The Beetles, JK Rowling, all artists who have ever lived. You may experience a humger during music but to treat it as a hunger for god is as to live on drugs, you get a high but there is no substance. The hunger is a hunger for music, for the brilliance of the musician, which exists whether there is a god or not. It is a mistake to believe an atheist thinks there is nothing worthwhile in life, we believe that everything worthwhile in life is the inevitable result of the physical universe, in the same way that Diplomacy alliances and trust are the best way to play the mechanics of the game rather than a stipulation of any extra rule imposed from above. Treating life in this way makes the cuisine sweeter, the novel more poignant, the song more vibrant.

I must admit, his points are weak. Except the number one. I think he was getting at that by saying God is complex and can't exist you're also saying you can't exist also because of obvious reasons. My point above basically says the same thing but I picked God over science because that's just what makes more sense to me.

@Zman - Your knowledge of the God of Christianity seems woefully inaccurate. God doesn't say: "believe in me or else." God says, "here, enjoy creation and enjoy intimacy and fellowship with me!" Then, biblically, men messed it up and have thus become enemies of God. This is simple justice. If you see your mother being raped and do nothing about it, you are one contemptible oaf. In the same way, should God see man destory His creation and turn to things less worthy, He would be injust.

Perhaps hypothesis was a bad form of word-use, but the point remains. Theists venture the courage to answer the question of what came from nothing. Atheists sit in their ivory towers and throw stones.

And your latest comment is a bold faced lie. That, or just a plain misunderstanding of philosophy. How can you empirically prove, through reason or sense, that anything needs to be empirically proven? You cannot! Thus, you are in the same realm of faIth as theists; which is why you're either lying about wanting to believe or you just misunderstand what "proof" really is.

The biggest clue or proof that God exists is THIS POST, and all similar discussions. As Zman put it, "Wanting/needing to believe in something seems to be a human imperative, because the alternate -essentially, meaninglessness - is something humans cant come to terms with."

Why can't we come to terms with it? That is the biggest clue. When I was an atheist, I became suicidal. There was no point to living. Why do we need life to have a point? Just that we ask that question so urgently means there must be an answer, some meaning to this life, besides evolution (which I also believe in, they are not mutually exclusive).

There must be more to it than this physical world. Otherwise, why would humans have the capacity and necessity to ask what it's all about? We simply evolved that capacity? Highly unlikely, even less likely than all the random gases, chemical,s and DNA mutuations that created us. No, there is something special, even supernatural about being able to even ponder the question.

You should first specify more clearly what you mean with 'God'. Do you mean an old man with a beard?

The question "is there a God?" can not be answered by science, because the question is not formulated scientifically.

Lucas

@Crazyter
When you were an Atheist you were suicidal? Each to their own I suppose. Becoming an atheist helped me realise my full potential.

@OMG:

re: 1 - Reread the clue. Hawking says something must exist "outside" creation. You're placing God back in and applying creation's principles to the creator.

re: 2 - Careful here. You've thrown out the buzzword "evolution" and are assuming it means galactic and universal evolution, as in, the evolution of universes and galaxies. Really? Well prove that!

re: 3 - I'll rest on your last sentence that "of course you cannot prove that this is true..." Well, there you go. You're living by faith.

re: 4 - Did you really call the Beatles and JK Rowling great? Sheesh!

You say: "we believe that everything worthwhile in life is the inevitable result of the physical universe, in the same way that Diplomacy alliances and trust are the best way to play the mechanics of the game rather than a stipulation of any extra rule imposed from above. Treating life in this way makes the cuisine sweeter, the novel more poignant, the song more vibrant."

You call things "worthwhile" when it cannot be so in your system. Cuisine is not "sweet" nor can it be "sweeter" than another. A song cannot be "vibrant." These emotive words are nothing more than years of neurological hardwiring. No song is any more vibrant than another. They are words and sounds echoing through the nothingness with which we exist. We've had this discussion before. You are betraying your system to assert goodness or beauty or evil to anything. We are created by Luck and Time. There is nothing more.

Yes, I had friends, money, sex life, a promising career, but suddenly I was asking "Is this all there is? " It felt empty, it wasn't enough.

Um, I was saying that I would take great comfort if someone provided me with proof that, at the very least, there is a dichotomy between the "soul" and the body. For example, I read with great interest about a joint study that a number of hospitals in the US and UK are conducting. Many people say that during a near death experience, they felt they floated up from the operating table, out of their bodies, and could observe doctors, nurses etc. Most scientists say that this is just the neurons in the patients brain going bonkers so close to death. What these hospitals are proposing to do, is to put a piece of paper, with something random written on it, on a high shelf or ledge in the operating room, so that no one could see it from the ground. They will then interview patients who claim to have left their bodies, and ask whether they saw the piece of paper, and if so, what was written on it. If a statistically relevant number of patients actually accurately state what that paper said, then there is the proof!. That is proof that you can leave your body, with your senses intact - i.e. that there is a soul!

That is the proof I refer to, and if this experiment reports patients successfully seeing the writing on the paper, i would be convinced and would be overjoyed.

You got pissy because someone wrote "sigh" in response to one of your posts. And then you call me a liar when I state that my personal preference would be to find proof of God's existence? Perhaps you should learn to treat others as you demand others treat you. Or perhaps you are like most other religious people I know, who feel like they can say whatever they like about non-believers, but get their knickers in a twist when anyone questions their beliefs.

Regarding my knowledge of the God of Christianity - heres a question. What is the bible's answer to this question: A man lives a good life, and never hurts anyone, tries to help others when he can, but adamantly does not believe in God, or Jesus or the Holy Spirit, and loudly states that he does not so believe. Will this person go to heavan or hell? If the bible says that he will go to heavan, regardless of his lack of belief, then I retract my statement regarding religion and its "believe or else" message. But if the answer is no, he cant go to heavan because he doesnt believe, regardless of how nice a guy he is...I think my point is proved - that the message is most decidely "believe or else".

Anyway, back to my Dip game.

Suppose a man tried to explain to his 2 year old son how he was conceived. Regardless of whether the conception was natual or by some means of assisted fertility, the child would struggle to understand. Perhaps we would try and make it simple for them...mummy laid down with daddy etc, maybe we would lie to them, daddy put a bun in mummy's oven, maybe we would tell them that a doctor helped mummy get pregnant.

The child is unlikely to understand any of this although it may believe every explanation offered. We have the relative minds of a child when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe yet we kid ourselves that we know all the answers and are so convinced we are right that we fight other people that have a different understanding. Why can't we accept that we don't know and just wait for a time when we know more?

@Zman: you say,

"You got pissy because someone wrote "sigh" in response to one of your posts. And then you call me a liar when I state that my personal preference would be to find proof of God's existence? Perhaps you should learn to treat others as you demand others treat you. Or perhaps you are like most other religious people I know, who feel like they can say whatever they like about non-believers, but get their knickers in a twist when anyone questions their beliefs."

i said, you're either 1. Lying to yourself, or 2. Misunderstanding what you're wanting philosophically. I stand by that. It's no disrespect to call a lie a lie, nor is it disrespect to call a black man a black man. It seems that maybe you are not lying (or you wouldn't have retorted in the way you did) and that option 2 is the more likely. In your "dcotor's test" you're still looking for empirical proof. Answer this question: How can you empirically prove that to believe something it has to be empirically proven?

And question my beliefs all you want! For goodness sake, I'm not upset in the least; in fact I like it. The "sigh" was a put down. It was a way of saying, "Ok, listen closely you misunderstanding monkey..." Me saying you're either lying or misunderstanding a difficult philosophical reality is hardly a personal attack. The two cannot be compared.

Regarding your understanding of Christianity: No man lives a good life. Not one person. All are deserving of Hell. So, yes, that supposed "good" man is destined for eternal seperation from God. The message is hardly "believe or else." The message is: You've betrayed your creator! You've chosen your own prideful way! You want to be God! Then God, seeing this betrayal and consumed with love for you, the betrayer, says "Come to me! I will rescue you! I will send myself incarnate to take my wrath away! I will punish Him for your crime! You will be set free, and credited with all His goodness if you would but trust in Him as your redeemer and savior! Please take this gift!"

i'm pretty sure there's a lot of evidence. read the bible!!

Bart,

This will be my last post as I feel we ae going round in circles.

Why do I have to prove that you that we need proof? Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? I assume you dont because why would you? Despite multiple deep dives into the Loch, no proof of Nessie's existence has ever been found. But if they hauled a 600 ton dinosaur carcass out of the Loch, then you would believe.

Thats how I feel about God. I cant believe in something just because someone tells me to believe. But I will believe when some shred of empirical evidence is provided. I stipulated one possible avenue from which that evidence may come, in my description of the experiment above.

And your last para doesnt make sense to me. You are saying that God gives you every opportunity to believe, implores you to believe, to allow yourself to rescued. Fine. But if you dont, if you cant believe without proof, regardless of whether you are decent person or not, you burn in hell. Well what is that, other than saying "if you dont believe you burn in hell". You can couch it in any terms you want, but that, in its essence is what it is. Why doesnt God come and whisper in my ear that he wants to save me. If he did, I would most certainly allow myself to be saved.

You make it sound like it is a choice that everyone has - that we choose not to believe. If I put a gun to your head and said believe in the Loch Ness monster, could you honestly make the "choice" to believe in Nessie? Of course not. You may say "yes, yes, I believe, now put the damn glock away". But that wouldnt mean you actually believe. Thats what religion essentially does. Make the choice to believe and you will go to heavan. Dont and you will burn in hell. Now I could start going to church, saying my prayers etc, but without proof, I could not actually believe. And for that, the Bible and the Quran say i will go to hell. I will go to hell because the brain God gave me, will not allow me to accept a notion that provides me with no proof. That seems like the ultimate Catch-22.

Finally, your exact words were "And your latest comment is a bold faced lie." It is disingenuous of you to now pretend you actually meant "youre lying to yourself".

Maniac,

What you describe is classic agnosticism. I have no problem with that. I am just saying that based on what we DO know now...etc etc

no one is demanding anyone ago believe in anything. also zman...i told you these threads always become repetitive.

I don't believe in God. I am either atheist or agnostic, depending on how you want to define your terms

There is one serious problem with arguing this position, which is the misunderstanding of where the burden of proof lies. StevenC.'s posts at the top of this thread illustrated. To say "I don't believe x exists" is to state that you hold the default position. Some object, for which there is no sound evidence either way, probably doesn't exist.

So I, the atheist, must knock down the evidence for the existence of god to nil, and then it is reduced to Russell's teapot: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

It is accepted now that the evidence for the existence of god cannot prove his existence beyond any doubt. The only argument that claims as much is the ontological argument, which fails quite catastrophically, for a number of reasons. We are left to three major arguments: the teleological, the cosmological and the bollocks.

Normally, "the bollocks argument" doesn't make it into text books, but it definitely exists. I use this term for any argument that relies upon something that "seems to me to be the case". I use this term for such things as the moral argument, arguments from the existence of beauty etc. because there is firstly no reason why anyone should accept the fact that the concept being argued from exists, and for those who accept there existence, there is no reason why they can't be some human construct.

Another "bollocks argument" is the "Is this all there is?" line. Yes, it is, there's nothing wrong with that. You might think our explanation of the motion of planets is unsatisfactory "Are these great bodies held in their paths just by one force? Is that all there is?". Yes, why shouldn't it be.

The cosmological argument creates a "god of the gaps", however much you deny the fact. It also relies upon assumptions of causality and/or conservation laws about which we have no right to make assertions beyond the areas we have experience in. This argument normally gets used as part of a series of arguments as I shall come back to.

The teleological argument might well count as a bollocks argument, but it is sufficiently well proliferated for me to want to deal with it separately. Paley's watch doesn't need dealing with, I don't feel, because it has been dealt sufficient a blow by evolution that the man who accepts it isn't worthy of the discussion, in my view. The arguments were reformed after Darwin, but have a tendency to be beaten back to the edge of scientific knowledge, so that now they sit at the fundamental constants being as they are. This argument would be refuted simply by statistical knowledge. You cannot do statistics after the event, looking at only one case. You cannot request that we assert the existence of god because things are the way they are. Of course things are the way they are! The probability is 1, for that.

So normally, we end up with Swinburne's argument, namely that the simplest explanation to everything is that God exists. In science, we go for the simplest argument that works- we proposed Neptune, a single planet, rather than two planets, to explain the motion of Uranus, after all. We were justified in so doing. However, we do that because it explains something. We postulate an example of something we understand- a planet, because that we we don't need a new phenomena we don't. God is a totally new idea, and doesn't explain anything, it just invites the same questions again about god, whilst opening several cans of worms about why isn't the world different if there is somebody designing stuff. (Why the heck did he have to develop a parasite that eats through eyeballs, propogates itself, and dies?). This idea of simplicity is based on the idea that because you only need 1 god, but might need many of some other thing to offer an explanation of phenomena, 1 god is simpler. Suppose you saw a sanddune: what holds it up underneath, more sand, millions and millions of grains of it, or one giant marble?

@ Bartdogg:
I don't usually comment in these sorts of threads, but I think something important has happened here. I'd like to point out to you that your first foray into this thread was simply to copy and paste links from a blog that I'm pretty sure was written by you. I would happen to agree with muni3 that that blog does little except reaffirm that the deepest cosmological questions have yet to be answered, and I recognize that that is undeniably true. I also fully respect your right to speak your mind and hold beliefs that are very important to you.
However, I'd like to now reference your next post directed at muni3, which I'm sure you wrote when you were angry at his comments. I don't think muni3 was trying to say you're a monkey or anything of that sort. I also don't believe he's saying God definitely doesn't exist. I think you interpolated that in a knee-jerk sort of reaction against your prime beliefs.
Now to my actual argument here. I find it odd that Christians and other theists think it's fine to retaliate against people who challenge their beliefs, and yet they continually retaliate against the beliefs of others who either don't believe in God or aren't sure as to his existence. Simply because Christianity has strong roots and a large following does not announce its position in this argument as superior. What I'm trying to say here is that you should speak against an argument with which you disagree in the same way it was presented to you. If muni3 didn't call you a monkey, there's no need to become aggressive and imply that he did. I'd really like to see these discussions carried out with more respect to both sides.

bartdogg has raised some interesting elements of Christianity, which deserve further discussion than I got on to (actually, they don't, because its a bit like discussing whether Russell's teapot contains Earl Grey or Assam tea).

But with regard to the universal damnable nature of humanity. No human is morally sound, you say. In fact, you deny the very possibility of a human being morally sound. Its just impossible. Doesn't that sort of make a mockery about complaining about humans being morally unsound? If I criticised you for not performing an impossible act, you'd be pretty unimpressed, but when being moral is an impossible act, you think its fine for us all to be condemned to hell-fire because of it?

re: z

I've given the lochness monster zero though whatsoever. He/it makes no claim to be my creator, so I just simply don't care. Many people take this view with God but fail to recognize the difference that God has creator rights to His creation. You are His pot, and He is the potter; like it or not. Likewise, I have no interest in whether the tooth fairy exists.

Here is you thinking: "I will not fully believe in anything (God in this case) unless I have empirical proof, by sense or reason." My question is, why? Do you believe you will wake up tomorrow? If so, why? Surely it can't be empirically tested! You are left with a guess. Since you woke up every day thus far, you guess that you'll wake up tomorrow. But the reality is that you just do not know. You are guessing.

That's my point, and a common one I keep coming back to in this forum. You are living by faith.

Have you studies Biblical prophecy? Have you studied Norse mythology? Have you critiqued the historicity of the New Testament literature? I would guess no, simply from your responses thus far. My conclusion is this: you sit back and say you will not believe until God is proven without even looking at the evidence. Then, to top it off, you say you "want" to believe but just cannot because proof has not been presented. How can you know unless you've delved into the history of, at least, the major religions of the world?

I've already answered why God doesn't whisper in your ear: free-will would be crushed. He wants you to choose Him, not be a robot. He is no more or less satisfied in Himself should you not choose, but He wants you to choose Him nonetheless, because He knows He is the best thing for you.

Faith in Christ is no skeptic-less lot, let me tell you; you're mislead there. I doubt all the time, and question all types of things, but the case for Christ is just to compelling and historically overwhelming to ultimately abandon the faith.

I'll stand by both comments actually :) It was a bold faced lie and you were lying to yourself. I was trying to soften my choice of words.

Bartdogg, not caring about the lochness monster doesn't get around the philosophical point about empiricism that was made.

Bartdogg, we do have evidence for tomorrow, namely today. We have a model of how the solar system works that is sound, has predicted things, and has been correct in them. This being the case, we can stand by it. In the case of god, you haven't made a model of the universe involving god that has created testable predictions in repeatable experiments, have you? It is this that is at the heart of good scientific inquiry, a flag which you have no right to fly in this discussion.

Well what I dont understand about the all humans are immoral, is that Bart then states that, due this fact, the way you are saved is to believe. And if you dont believe, you are not saved. But then he denies that religion states that if you dont believe, you burn in hell; the flip side of that being "believe, or else". If this is true, then the argument that God doesnt show himself because he wants to foster free will in humans falls flat. How are you fostering free will by presenting what is essentially a threat ("Believe, or else").

The sigh wasnt meant to insult you. It ws meant to be a kind of a shake of the head, meaning "I just dont get it". Sorry if you took it the wrong way. But I agree with Zman in that i dont see how you can call someone a liar when they are simply stating their personal beliefs. It does, unfortunately, giave credence to what Zman and Aeglos are saying about how religious people feel they have a license to dish it, and a license to display righteous indignation at even a perceived slight.

I'll try to sift through:

TGM - "But with regard to the universal damnable nature of humanity. No human is morally sound, you say. In fact, you deny the very possibility of a human being morally sound. Its just impossible. Doesn't that sort of make a mockery about complaining about humans being morally unsound? If I criticised you for not performing an impossible act, you'd be pretty unimpressed, but when being moral is an impossible act, you think its fine for us all to be condemned to hell-fire because of it?"

Yes. It is absolutely fine to be condemned to hell-fire for not being morally sound, even though it is impossible. We are all guilty. It is impossible to be innocent. That doesn't make the guilty man any less guilty. He remains in his guilt, regardless of how likely it is he is otherwise.

Of course there is

Right, so by the same token, we should jeer Bolt for taking over 9 seconds to run 100m, criticise doctors for not being able to ensure our eternal life and the newsagent on the corner of Old Kent Road for not stopping the crash of TWA flight 800, should we, even though all of these are impossible?

If you're God is going to damn me for being unable to do something that is impossible, I would quite like to find his son and crucify him myself, thank you very much.

@TGM - "Bartdogg, not caring about the lochness monster doesn't get around the philosophical point about empiricism that was made."

I don't really get what you're saying. Nessie is not my creator, nor did any sane man claim him to be. Why should i care?

"Bartdogg, we do have evidence for tomorrow, namely today. We have a model of how the solar system works that is sound, has predicted things, and has been correct in them. This being the case, we can stand by it. In the case of god, you haven't made a model of the universe involving god that has created testable predictions in repeatable experiments, have you? It is this that is at the heart of good scientific inquiry, a flag which you have no right to fly in this discussion."

I am flying no scientific flag. Reread my first "clue." I actually say (and yes the blog is obviously mine) these are "clues" precisely because belief in God can't be empirically proven. Neither can belief against it.

Your teapot analogy comparing to the clues given for God's existence is a bit far-fetched. You are one man that simply postulated an idea, with zero clues whatsoever. Clues for the existence of God are hardly comparable.

Listen, what I am trying to say, and I've said it a hundred times, is that you guys are demanding empirical proof for the existence of God. You're not going to get it. What I want you to see is that yours is also a position of faith. What is crushing this discussion in academia is the idea that (and this I attributed to muni perhaps wrongly) to believe in God is to be unintelligible, but to hold to the need for empirical proof is to be honored.

Why?

Someone do this for me. Please. Empirically prove to me (the very thing you're demanding of God here) why I must'nt believe in something unless it be empirically proven?

@Bartdogg
It is highly interesting that you accuse me of having nothing worthwhile, while in your own statements you think of yourself and everyhting in this world as nothing more than a pot. When one thing is everything, everything else is nothing and your religion destroys all concepts of worth until we are left with nothing but the cruel god who tortures us and removed worth from our lives.

Just because things come from low starts does not mean they cannot be worthwhile.

@TGM - "Right, so by the same token, we should jeer Bolt for taking over 9 seconds to run 100m, criticise doctors for not being able to ensure our eternal life and the newsagent on the corner of Old Kent Road for not stopping the crash of TWA flight 800, should we, even though all of these are impossible?

If you're God is going to damn me for being unable to do something that is impossible, I would quite like to find his son and crucify him myself, thank you very much."

You've changed parameters. Bolt's speed is no offense to you. Neither is the TWA flight; neither is a doctor. We have betrayed our creator. Bolt has not betrayed anyone.

@OMG

I was following through with your system. Luck and Time affords us no luxury of beauty or goodness or majesty or honor other than neurological impulses developed through the ages. Crazyter was faithful to follow his worldview through to the end.