Arguments against the existence of God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Faith] >> General Faith



Message

uniteforlife -> Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 10:17:49 PM)

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-- Shakespeare

I have never understood the arguments against the existence of God.

Scientific theory or scientific fact is what? An explanation of how things work, yes? Even if we understand how things work, what is the problem with believing these are just the mechanisms God chose for his work?

There will come a point in our growth, where all things can and will be measured. When the mechanics behind all things can be explained. But this is just measuring not understanding. Even if we understand exactly how the big bang happened, to the billionth of the second (or however close it is we understand), even when conscience is explained, I fail to see how this will prove that God does not exist. It will just be explaining the mechanics of it.

Measuring is where we lose the beauty. How do you measure the beauty of Beethoven's Eroica or the 9th Symphony or any other piece of music that moves you. Please measure my reaction to it, not physiologically, but spiritually. Tell me why I like it. Tell me why music with no words to remind me of something can move me to tears. This to me is spirit. God working through us.

We can understand the methods used and the mechanism behind those methods yet still not understand the why of creation, the why of being. Explaining things or analyzing them after the fact is not too difficult. Like music theory, it can explain whats happening but not why.

In my opinion, Christianity is being attacked hard these days with nonsense arguments. I haven't heard one that comes close to proving a point.



delete123 -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 10:54:01 PM)

Ok I am no theologian, but sometimes I find humor in these circumstances.
#1 A group of scientist are standing around amazed they have it all figured out how to create man and procclaimed they do not need God!

They have all the DNA evidence and can make their own man. One scientist who was behooved asked, "can you show how you derived this forumla?" The Smug scientist agreed as he reached for some dirt, when a voice from above stated: Uh Uh get make your own Dirt!

The other one was about he Bang Theory: Jesus said Bang! and it Happened!!!!

Ok I do not get into scientific debates as far as micro-organisms, because even "if" that was the case, Who gave the micro-organism life? Well Duh!

As far as evolution goes and people came from monkeys, I think the monkeys may have a say about that.
But I do believe in Dinosaurs.......
CRH



uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 10:59:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crh737
They have all the DNA evidence and can make their own man. One scientist who was behooved asked, "can you show how you derived this forumla?" The Smug scientist agreed as he reached for some dirt, when a voice from above stated: Uh Uh get make your own Dirt!


Ha, thats funny, I like that one! Never heard that before.



kung_fu_sed -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 11:21:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crh737

As far as evolution goes and people came from monkeys, I think the monkeys may have a say about that.
But I do believe in Dinosaurs.......
CRH


Evolution is as much of a fairy tale as humans landing on the moon. Check out Kent Hovind. He rips evolution apart and exposes it for what it is.



uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 11:31:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kung_fu_sed
Evolution is as much of a fairy tale as humans landing on the moon. Check out Kent Hovind. He rips evolution apart and exposes it for what it is.


Humans didn't land on the moon? Neil Armstrong may disagree.

As far as evolution goes, I'm not a scientist and I have never studied evolution, but from a layman's point of view, I don't see how evolution diminishes Gods creation in the slightest sense.



kung_fu_sed -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 11:44:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uniteforlife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kung_fu_sed
Evolution is as much of a fairy tale as humans landing on the moon. Check out Kent Hovind. He rips evolution apart and exposes it for what it is.


Humans didn't land on the moon? Neil Armstrong may disagree.



Lol. Don't choke down everything you're fed. [:'(]



uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/23/2008 11:51:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kung_fu_sed
Lol. Don't choke down everything you're fed. [:'(]


Believe me, I am the last one to choke down "everything I'm fed"... especially conspiracy theories. Your opinion is your opinion though my friend

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about. Peace to you.



kung_fu_sed -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 2:10:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uniteforlife

quote:

ORIGINAL: kung_fu_sed
Lol. Don't choke down everything you're fed. [:'(]



Anyway, that's not what this thread is about. Peace to you.


Yeah, good move avoiding an off topic argument. God bless. [sm=wave.gif]



SonInMe1 -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 7:51:57 AM)

Its pride.

Religion is seen as the opiate of the masses by the intellectual elite. God's a farity tale for people who can't make good lives for themselves. Every scientific discovery that might support their pride just reinforce their egos.



DaveW -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 11:31:58 AM)

FACT: Armstrong, Aldrin and several others physically stepped on the moon.

FICTION: Darwinian evolution.



Narcil -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 3:44:36 PM)

uniteforlife, You make very good points;

However, I would like to disagree with you on one point: That science will never reach a point when "all things can...be measured."

The "Planck Boundary" (located in time 10^-33 seconds after the beginning of the "Big Bang") will never be crossed - Science will never be able to describe the conditions of the universe on the other side of that boundary. Likewise, science will never be able to see the universe beyond the Hubble Boundary (the distance from the singularity point origin of the universe at which universal expansion begins moving faster than the speed of light). These are just two basic examples of physical limits that science will never be able to see beyond.



Narcil -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 4:30:19 PM)

Science can’t explain the deepest questions that we have asked ourselves over the centuries: Such as, “Why are we here? (Not, “How did we come into being,” which it might be possible for science to answer, although even that answer has so far eluded scientists, but rather “WHY, for what purpose, are we here?”). Science can’t explain consciousness, kindness, morality, or even free will. It can’t explain intention or, as I stated above, purpose.

Here are two classic examples:

1. A brain surgeon knows a great deal more about the physical brain than I do, yet he has absolutely no access to my mind. He knows nothing about my innermost thoughts, he can’t discover them by looking at my brain, and he can’t tell what I’m thinking about, or what makes me happy, sad, worried, elated through any scientific means available to him.

2. (Credit to Philosopher Brain Magee for this example):
I am sitting in a room, when the human body sitting opposite me rises out of it’s chair and then moves across the room to a table. On the table it locates a small silver box, out of which it removes a cigarette which it places in it’s mouth. Upon completing this action, the body proceeds to light that same cigarette.

I, and anyone else who observes this action, immediately understand that that person is desiring a cigarette, even if we have never experienced such a similar desire ourselves before. However, if we try to explain this sequence of events in scientific terms, those of atomic motion and chemical reaction, this sequence suddenly becomes totally incomprehensible.

Science is very limited in ability to explain the universe around us. It is only a tool and a flawed tool at that as David Hume and Thomas Kuhn have so brilliantly pointed out. Yet, it remains the best, and very important, tool we have for attempting to explain the natural world. But that is all, only what can be examined physically and measured quantitatively and qualitatively is open to science.

Everything else falls into the realms or Philosophy and Theology.



SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 5:05:40 PM)

I personally don't know what causes a man to not believe in God. All I have to do is look out my window, and I just know that this is Gods creation.

I think mans desire to feel in total control of everything, and understand everything, leads to him away from God. Some people just don't want to believe that something so incredibly complex as man, was so simply created.

I also think that mans fear of judgment leads him to denounce God, and try to come up with other possibilities. Like the theories of devilution, oops I meant evolution, and the smoking a big ol bong theory, oops again, the big gang theory. Fact is, these are just mans attempt to explain away something we have no explanation for. For if we take God out of the equation, there is absolutely no purpose or reason for us to be here. But if we leave God in, then we do have purpose and reason, but also judgment waiting.

So I think out of huge egos and fear, we come up with these lame excuses for explanations.

I would say the really scary thing is how so many people eat these theories up like candy, and don't question it because science says its true.



GeorgiaNerd -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 6:42:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
Its pride.

Religion is seen as the opiate of the masses by the intellectual elite. God's a farity tale for people who can't make good lives for themselves. Every scientific discovery that might support their pride just reinforce their egos.


Really? It's interesting to me that Christians would think this, because many atheists I know (myself included) think that one of the main reasons for Christianity and the other religions is man's ego. The other is lack of understanding.

Anyways, of course arguments against the existence of God aren't going to make much sense, especially to Christians. Why would they? The way I see it, there are two possible arguments: personal arguments and the argument that the evidence is inconclusive or inconsistent with the idea that the Christian God exists. Personal arguments, such as the reason that I deconverted from Christianity, are not credible arguments, nor are Christian testimonies. Therefore, it is the evidence that is being argued. Evidence for God's existence, not against it.



GeorgiaNerd -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/24/2008 7:00:17 PM)

quote:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-- Shakespeare

I have never understood the arguments against the existence of God.

Scientific theory or scientific fact is what? An explanation of how things work, yes? Even if we understand how things work, what is the problem with believing these are just the mechanisms God chose for his work?

There will come a point in our growth, where all things can and will be measured. When the mechanics behind all things can be explained. But this is just measuring not understanding. Even if we understand exactly how the big bang happened, to the billionth of the second (or however close it is we understand), even when conscience is explained, I fail to see how this will prove that God does not exist. It will just be explaining the mechanics of it.

Measuring is where we lose the beauty. How do you measure the beauty of Beethoven's Eroica or the 9th Symphony or any other piece of music that moves you. Please measure my reaction to it, not physiologically, but spiritually. Tell me why I like it. Tell me why music with no words to remind me of something can move me to tears. This to me is spirit. God working through us.

We can understand the methods used and the mechanism behind those methods yet still not understand the why of creation, the why of being. Explaining things or analyzing them after the fact is not too difficult. Like music theory, it can explain whats happening but not why.

In my opinion, Christianity is being attacked hard these days with nonsense arguments. I haven't heard one that comes close to proving a point.


That's an interesting argument as well, especially since I am a music theorist (it's not that easy, by the way), and also have a biology major and atheist. I don't see why analysis and understanding/meaning have to be mutually exclusive. What exactly is it about measuring that makes things lose beauty? For me, beauty comes from analysis, but I know that beauty comes from different things for different people. Anyways, thanks for challenging me to think about this topic.



Brachah -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 12:11:13 AM)

actually i wud be very interested in starting a new topic on atheism, but i dont know if it's proper to have it on CW in this general faith forum. so i wl try to express some opinion here.

most my atheists friends actually dont care to provide any evidence to prove G-d doesnt exist. the actual reason they reject christianity is bcz they hate those so many christians or churches they dont like. they often tell me those are liars and control-minded, including their christian parents.

so i think the reasons of most atheists are social, political instead of scientific.



Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 1:15:58 AM)

quote:

so i think the reasons of most atheists are social, political instead of scientific.


I think that is part of the motivation. Pascal suggested it was also a product of having greater faith in doubt than in admitting the possibility that knowledge may come from somewhere other than our own limited ability to reason.



oldmethuselah -> Alternate Universe or What? (4/25/2008 1:40:59 AM)

Wow, Redcoat, now I DO believe in alternate/parallel universes!

Here's me a music theorist, mathematician and convert FROM atheism...
and here's you a music theorist, biologist and convert FROM christianity!

so... while I was finding that the Christian colleagues and profs I met were the most cohesive and logical to the point where contrast between them and my fellow atheists became embarassing...

you were finding that your christian buddies were ninnies in comparison with your slick new atheistic friends...

how spooky! perhaps we live in different universes, and only this forum provides and intersection point between them!

ROFL...[:D]

seriously, though, you may not have had a very good sampling of Christian intellect to start with - but, that aside, with access to all sorts of internet resources now, are you now willing to boldly say you have:

a) read or exposed yourself to bona fide Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacharias, etc. and found them wanting?, and,

b) come to the conclusion, after carefully studying atheist chat sites, that they are full of cohesive, even handed, logical thinkers who would NEVER degenerate into use of:

1) Linguistic Poverty (rough words to bolster weak arguments)
2) Ad Hominem Attacks (destroying the speaker when unable to destroy the argument), or,
3) non-sequitur deviations (leaving the argument entirely when their point is lost)

well?

better hurry, the link between our two universes may close at any time!



atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 1:58:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kung_fu_sed

Evolution is as much of a fairy tale as humans landing on the moon. Check out Kent Hovind. He rips evolution apart and exposes it for what it is.


And he's also doing 10 years in the slammer at the moment... but I'll try not to drop to ad hominem attacks. Hovind's comments on evolution betray an extraordinary lack of knowledge about biology and geology (he thinks fossils count for nothing), and he has to resort to lies to make his point (he continues to say - despite being told that this is factually incorrect - that 'Lucy's' bones were found miles apart). Hovind could have his own thread to lay out the charges against him, which we can save for another time.

Point is that I have genuine sympathy if you've been led to believe that theories such as those of Hovind's merit your attention. They don't begin to stack up against the wonderful and brilliant work by the great scientists of our age who have taken us so much further in our quest to understand the cosmos than a conspiracy-obsessed fraud who's been disowned by many of his allies (e.g. AiG).

I've articulated myself pretty poorly in this post, not really brought my point across. Might come back to this.

AiP



atheistinpeace -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 2:14:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uniteforlife

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-- Shakespeare

I have never understood the arguments against the existence of God.

Scientific theory or scientific fact is what? An explanation of how things work, yes? Even if we understand how things work, what is the problem with believing these are just the mechanisms God chose for his work?

There will come a point in our growth, where all things can and will be measured. When the mechanics behind all things can be explained. But this is just measuring not understanding. Even if we understand exactly how the big bang happened, to the billionth of the second (or however close it is we understand), even when conscience is explained, I fail to see how this will prove that God does not exist. It will just be explaining the mechanics of it.

Measuring is where we lose the beauty. How do you measure the beauty of Beethoven's Eroica or the 9th Symphony or any other piece of music that moves you. Please measure my reaction to it, not physiologically, but spiritually. Tell me why I like it. Tell me why music with no words to remind me of something can move me to tears. This to me is spirit. God working through us.

We can understand the methods used and the mechanism behind those methods yet still not understand the why of creation, the why of being. Explaining things or analyzing them after the fact is not too difficult. Like music theory, it can explain whats happening but not why.

In my opinion, Christianity is being attacked hard these days with nonsense arguments. I haven't heard one that comes close to proving a point.


A few thoughts - atheism is much clearer, and more intellectually honest, when it is explicit in stating that it rejects arguments for God, rather than that it is capable of showing there is no God. And I can assure you that no scientist who is trying to prove God doesn't exist is being true to the spirit of scientific endeavour, of which the core value is to submit falsifiable theories that cannot be shown to be wrong. Non-falsifiable theories (such as the God hypothesis) make for lousy science.

Nonetheless, interesting arguments suggest that the existence of a God is highly improbable - this is the closest science can tread to showing there is no God. Dawkins's one is the '747 Gambit' (which I won't describe here in detail), which simply shows that, given that all complexity we observe has evolved from simplicity, and that a god is necessarily complex, it's highly improbable that a complex God figure can exist without roots in simplicity (which runs counter to the nature of a hypothesised God; further, there is no evidence of the roots of a simple God).

This argument is clearer when applied to evolution and ID - evolutionary theory explains over 90% of the life we observe on earth (in that we can trace the current lifeform's roots back to much simpler organisms); ID explains precisely 0%, as we're left with the overwhelming task of explaining how the designer became complex. And this we cannot do.

To address your last point, I feel that it's not so much an attack on Christianity - science is far more concerned with the pursuit of truth than discrediting religion.

Hope my thoughts are useful. And, as always, what I've put is in the spirit of good-natured debate, not as an attack on religion.

AiP



Brachah -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 2:56:34 AM)

quote:

In my opinion, Christianity is being attacked hard these days with nonsense arguments. I haven't heard one that comes close to proving a point.


i also dont agree.
anyway, there is BIG difference between attacking christianity and believing whether there is a G-d.
the whole picture is not this simple.



Brachah -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 3:18:45 AM)

quote:

Science is very limited in ability to explain the universe around us. It is only a tool and a flawed tool at that as David Hume and Thomas Kuhn have so brilliantly pointed out. Yet, it remains the best, and very important, tool we have for attempting to explain the natural world. But that is all, only what can be examined physically and measured quantitatively and qualitatively is open to science.

Everything else falls into the realms or Philosophy and Theology.


agree.
expecting explaining G-d by science is like expecting a 0-year-old baby explaining morality. :)
G-d is a SPIRIT.



Jhud -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 3:22:28 AM)

quote:

Nonetheless, interesting arguments suggest that the existence of a God is highly improbable - this is the closest science can tread to showing there is no God. Dawkins's one is the '747 Gambit' (which I won't describe here in detail), which simply shows that, given that all complexity we observe has evolved from simplicity, and that a god is necessarily complex, it's highly improbable that a complex God figure can exist without roots in simplicity (which runs counter to the nature of a hypothesised God; further, there is no evidence of the roots of a simple God).

This argument is clearer when applied to evolution and ID - evolutionary theory explains over 90% of the life we observe on earth (in that we can trace the current lifeform's roots back to much simpler organisms); ID explains precisely 0%, as we're left with the overwhelming task of explaining how the designer became complex. And this we cannot do.


Actually, these are a few of Dawkins weakest arguments; evolution doesn’t at all explain 90% of life on earth. Indeed, most of the major forms of life appeared during the Cambrian explosion, and evolution fails to explain that all together. Indeed, evolution is best at explaining the smaller changes we see within established forms, but not how those forms got there to begin with. And of course, naturalism absolutely fails to explain the origin of life all together.

Combine that with the utter failure to explain the origin of the universe, the failure to explain self-awareness and the moral and spiritual aspects of humanity, and naturalism leaves most of the major concerns of humanity completely unanswered.

And I find it interesting that Dawkins finds God, whom he assumes to be complex (despite the fact that most theists claim Him to be essentially simple) to be ‘improbable’ but he considers the multiverse, which is an infinite collection of universes being created and destroyed, and obviously extremely complex, to be likely.

Dawkins is no longer a scientist, and a very, very poor philosopher.

So every atheist is forced to have as much faith as the most devout Christian, without any of the explanatory benefits.



GeorgiaNerd -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 9:11:33 AM)

quote:

Wow, Redcoat, now I DO believe in alternate/parallel universes!

Here's me a music theorist, mathematician and convert FROM atheism...
and here's you a music theorist, biologist and convert FROM christianity!

so... while I was finding that the Christian colleagues and profs I met were the most cohesive and logical to the point where contrast between them and my fellow atheists became embarassing...

you were finding that your christian buddies were ninnies in comparison with your slick new atheistic friends...

how spooky! perhaps we live in different universes, and only this forum provides and intersection point between them!

ROFL...

seriously, though, you may not have had a very good sampling of Christian intellect to start with - but, that aside, with access to all sorts of internet resources now, are you now willing to boldly say you have:

a) read or exposed yourself to bona fide Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacharias, etc. and found them wanting?, and,

b) come to the conclusion, after carefully studying atheist chat sites, that they are full of cohesive, even handed, logical thinkers who would NEVER degenerate into use of:

1) Linguistic Poverty (rough words to bolster weak arguments)
2) Ad Hominem Attacks (destroying the speaker when unable to destroy the argument), or,
3) non-sequitur deviations (leaving the argument entirely when their point is lost)

well?

better hurry, the link between our two universes may close at any time!


lol OldMethuselah... Alternate universe indeed. My thesis is going to be on how to use statistical analysis on music so I can combine music theory and mathematics.

But really, if I thought all Christians were ninnies I probably wouldn't come here. Many atheists do believe that, but it really is an unfortunate stereotypes. Delusional maybe, but certainly not stupid.[;)] I suppose that I didn't explain my theory very well. Man's ego comes in to play with the Western Religions because people want to believe that they are the reason for the universe and that it was all created for them to rule. Humans have a need to be special, and separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. And we also have a need to explain things we do not understand.

Anyways, I don't really care what people choose to use to explain those things that we don't fully understand, as long as it doesn't hinder the beliefs of others. I come here more to understand what the "other side" thinks than to argue my point of view. As a weak atheist, I'm very much an agnostic.

Perhaps my resources on Christianity were not the best, as you say. I've never heard of Ravi Zacharias, but have read works by Josh McDowell, Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel and found them wanting. They never used an alternate hypothesis and ignored evidence that did not support their beliefs in my opinion.

Yes, I have seen atheist arguments use those techniques that you have stated. However, Christians also use those techniques. Strawman arguments and circular logic are also used by both groups



uniteforlife -> RE: Arguments against the existence of God (4/25/2008 10:49:15 AM)

Wow, far too many things for me to reply to at the moment. Thanks for all the thoughts though.

A couple things off the top of my head in regards to a couple replies.

Music theory and analysis: Good point that some people may find beauty in the measuring and analysis. I find a certain pleasure in analyzing music and discovering relations I hadn't seen before. But again, we can explain the how, but not the why. Why does the piece move us? Someone could take a symphony from a great composer; copy the structure, the theme development, the tempos, the orchestration, etc. etc. Yet still not come close to creating anything as brilliant, moving or soulful as the original piece. Why do melodies move us?

Dawkins: The man seems like a fanatic to me. I watched his special, I think it was on the BBC. He just seems to have a personal agenda he's trying further. He comes off very bitter and angry which makes him hard to listen to. His theories may be scientifically sound, I don't know. As Ive stated, I haven't studied evolution past the point of basic knowledge. It just truly doesn't interest me. Again though, I don't see how evolution would prove God doesn't exist.

The "747 Gambit": Something seems fishy to me about this, but I cant quite put my finger on it at the moment.

There may be barriers science can never break. Is this true? I don't know. Math and science are far from being my forte. But I can usually understand most arguments put forward. But my point is that even if science can eventually explain how all things work, this is still just explaining the mechanics of things working.

If neuroscience says that a certain part of my brain starts firing like mad when I hear Beethoven, or the "God spot" lights up when I'm meditating on Christ, then this proves it is just a function of the brain. Again, this just shows the mechanism of the phenomenon. Of course it's a function of the brain, but where is the stretch in believing that this is the mechanism God chose?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI