The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Cerpin Taxt]

The other bohemoth of a religion thread has long ago lost its focus, so I felt that the forum would benefit from a new thread.

This thread will have a re-newed focus on the central question: Is there a compelling reason to believe a god or gods exist?

It's no secret that I'm an atheist, so it is my educated opinion that the answer to the question is "no."

I think that theistic belief is a relic of the fledgling human consciousness -- in an effort to understand itself and its relation to its environment -- projecting its own ideals and attributes externally into nature, superimposing them onto natural phenomena and personifying it.

Some jumping-off points might include a discussion about what the word "god" stands for, and what exactly a "compelling reason" is.

If I have a really deep "spiritual" feeling when I pray to the god Krishna, is that a compelling reason to believe in the existence of Krishna?

If I observe that no things in the universe last for an infinite time, that all things are eventually destroyed in one manner or another, is that a compelling reason to believe in the existence of Shiva the destroyer?

Discuss.

 

[smackababy]

I think compelling is not a good word to use for this discussion. Any true believer is compelled, thus they believe. Something inside them compels them to believe that way, in such a way that a lack of evidence doesn't dissuade them.

Honestly, for me, there is no compelling evidence against any supernatural forces or beings. A lack of evidence isn't really compelling enough to completely disregard any type of "supernatural" as completely false. At the same time, I reject the idea that something (even an idea) outside of our closed system that is our universe could be conceived or actually represented within it. Energy is never destroyed or created, correct? Then how did energy come into existence? Perhaps, we are a closed system, and something that can defy our laws exists outside of said system?

 

[soulcougher73]

Is there a compelling reason to believe a god or gods exit?

I think that theistic belief is a relic of the fledgling human consciousness -- in an effort to understand itself and its relation to its environment -- projecting its own ideals and attributes externally into nature, superimposing them onto natural phenomena and personifying it.

Discuss.

That part of what you said is pretty much my belief as well of how man arrived at god. So for me, no, their is no compelling reason to believe in this day and age with the discoveries and advanvements in knowledge we've amassed in the past 2000 years ago.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Energy is never destroyed or created, correct? Then how did energy come into existence?

I always wonder why people think this is such a profound question. If it can neither be created nor destroyed then it stands to reason that it has always existed. Otherwise it can be created.

No matter what we point at and ask how did that come to be, we can always point at the answer to that question and ask how it came to be. Either something has always existed, or something spontaneously generated from nothing. There is no other answer possible.

I think we have a lot of trouble with these questions because our brain is basically hardwired to look for causation.

 

[smackababy]

I always wonder why people think this is such a profound question. If it can neither be created nor destroyed then it stands to reason that it has always existed. Otherwise it can be created.

No matter what we point at and ask how did that come to be, we can always point at the answer to that question and ask how it came to be. Either something has always existed, or something spontaneously generated from nothing. There is no other answer possible.

I think we have a lot of trouble with these questions because our brain is basically hardwired to look for causation.

The problem is the answer "it has always been" makes little sense, especially from what we understand. Something had to have been before the big bang, otherwise, what went bang. But, our understanding is limited by laws we observe. Obviously, energy has to be created at some point, otherwise, there would be none. But, what can create said energy? Nothing we know of yet (and that doesn't mean we won't find out in the future).

 

[SMOGZINN]

The problem is the answer "it has always been" makes little sense, especially from what we understand. Something had to have been before the big bang, otherwise, what went bang. But, our understanding is limited by laws we observe. Obviously, energy has to be created at some point, otherwise, there would be none. But, what can create said energy? Nothing we know of yet (and that doesn't mean we won't find out in the future).

And what created 'that which can create energy' and what created 'that which created that which created energy' and what created 'that which created that which created that which created energy' and what created 'that which created that which created that which created that which created energy' and what created 'that which created that which created that which created that which created that which created energy' and what and what created 'that which created that which created that which created that which created that which created that which created energy' and what created.....

No matter how you write this argument it leads to the same place. Something came from nothing or something always existed. Why wouldn't I just ascribe that property to something I already know exists.

EDIT: One other thing, the 'Big Bang' is the expansion of the universe, not necessarily it's creation. The universe might have existed already and the 'Bang' is just it expanding.

 

[alzan]

I'd say that depends on the individuals' needs. Some need for there to be a deity or deities and the attendant belief system for emotional stability. As well, human beings are social animals and seek out others of like mind for that need of community.

I personally have no compelling reason to believe in deities.

EDIT: One other thing, the 'Big Bang' is the expansion of the universe, not necessarily it's creation. The universe might have existed already and the 'Bang' is just it expanding.

Something I've recently accepted.

 

[Retro Rob]

"Compelling"?

Depends on who you ask. What's "compelling" to one person could be total nonsense to another.

FWIW, I've never had a "spiritual experience", nor have I ever felt a "supernatural presence" (or any of the so-called "proofs" theists offers for the existence of God) in my life but I am pretty certain that God exists.

What would be somewhat compelling to me is the fact that we're naturally inclined to believe in a god/God. I reason that if a god/God didn't exist, then why the heck do we have this seemingly perfectly natural capacity?

But that's just me, I'm sure others feel the exact opposite!

 

[Paul98]

When the answer is something that has no evidence nothing testable, can do and be responsible for doing anything you can think of and has no restrictions. then you use it to explain anything you don't like, don't understand, or want to be different. These gods don't need dont need to be explained there is no reality that has to confine them. So many enjoy the safety it gives them. Many people are able to believe what ever they want rather than it needing to make rational sense.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

The big bang neither requires anything before it, nor will laws of nature like "Energy cannot be created or destroyed" necessarily hold true.

It's a singularity. Normal laws of physics, including things like "There is always a moment before this one" simply break down.



As for whether there's a compelling reason for the existence of god....we'd need to be more specific. If we're talking about god in the Abrahamic tradition, or the various similar divinities occasionally put forth by those who haven't completely broken with their traditions....well, no. There just isn't anything there.

If we're talking more along the lines of Taoist thinking, where god is just another name for the universe, sure, I think there's pretty compelling evidence that exists. But I can't imagine "The universe exists" will make for interesting discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think compelling is not a good word to use for this discussion. Any true believer is compelled, thus they believe. Something inside them compels them to believe that way, in such a way that a lack of evidence doesn't dissuade them.

I get what you're saying. The way I mean it is this: is there an external reason which should be persuasive to a rational person who does not already believe that a god or gods exist?

Honestly, for me, there is no compelling evidence against any supernatural forces or beings. A lack of evidence isn't really compelling enough to completely disregard any type of "supernatural" as completely false.

It seems to me that there is no such thing as "evidence against X."

"Evidence against X" is really just a shorthand way of saying "Evidence for Y (which is assumed to be incompatible with the existence of X)." I think this is an important distinction which may seem inane on its face, but when written in long form as I've phrased it above it reveals that certain assumption which I think merits closer scrutiny.

The fact is that there is no Y which is incompatible with the existence of X when X is the reality of supernatural phenomena. To me, that seems to erase any significance of the actually trivial fact that "there is no compelling evidence against supernatural forces or beings."

At the same time, I reject the idea that something (even an idea) outside of our closed system that is our universe could be conceived or actually represented within it. Energy is never destroyed or created, correct? Then how did energy come into existence? Perhaps, we are a closed system, and something that can defy our laws exists outside of said system?

Certainly, anything is possible, but not everything which is possible and not falsified by observation or reasoning is automatically true.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

... I am pretty certain that God exists.

You're pretty certain that what exists?

I expect you to presume I'm being pedantic, but I really think that the question lifts the skirt on people who profess a belief in a god.

What is it -- exactly -- that you're certain exists?

Words are symbols that stand for things that actually exist in reality. The word "guitar" is not a guitar, for example. The word refers to the thing.

The word "god" is not a god, of course. What is it that the word refers to, though?

What would be somewhat compelling to me is the fact that we're naturally inclined to believe in a god/God.

I think we are naturally inclined to project attributes of our selves onto things that we don't understand.

I reason that if a god/God didn't exist, then why the heck do we have this seemingly perfectly natural capacity?

Because induction works from the inside out. If you have no external reference or context within which to understand a phenomenon, you must dip your cup of reason into the only well that never runs dry -- your own personality.

But that's just me, I'm sure others feel the exact opposite!

And that's usually a safe bet.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Energy is never destroyed or created, correct?

Actually, this doesn't seem to be correct. Einstein's general theory of relativity effectively removed the requirement that energy be conserved inherent in classical Newtonian physics. The latest cosmological theories about dark energy posit a constant density of it even as space continues to expand.

...I am pretty certain that God exists.

"Pretty certain" suggests at least some level of doubt on your part, which seems only sensible to me given my agnostic tendencies.

 

[witeken]

Actually, this doesn't seem to be correct. Einstein's general theory of relativity effectively removed the requirement that energy be conserved inherent in classical Newtonian physics. The latest cosmological theories about dark energy posit a constant density of it even as space continues to expand.
.

Conservation of energy is true. Here's why.

 

[witeken]

What would be somewhat compelling to me is the fact that we're naturally inclined to believe in a god/God. I reason that if a god/God didn't exist, then why the heck do we have this seemingly perfectly natural capacity?

Here's an interesting explanation: Dr. Daniel Dennett - Breaking the Spell

 

[Retro Rob]

Here's an interesting explanation: Dr. Daniel Dennett - Breaking the Spell

Firstly, I don't have time to watch an hour long video, secondly, I am really not interested in what I call the atheist version of Christian fundamentalism. I've read and heard enough from DDH (Dawkins, Dennett, & Harris) to where I am well-aware of most of their views on the matter.

Why not come with something original?

 

[witeken]

Firstly, I don't have time to watch an hour long video,

You should put the speed at 2x .

Why not come with something original?

Because I think it answers your question quite well.

 

[alzan]

"Compelling"?

Depends on who you ask. What's "compelling" to one person could be total nonsense to another.

FWIW, I've never had a "spiritual experience", nor have I ever felt a "supernatural presence" (or any of the so-called "proofs" theists offers for the existence of God) in my life but I am pretty certain that God exists.

What would be somewhat compelling to me is the fact that we're naturally inclined to believe in a god/God. I reason that if a god/God didn't exist, then why the heck do we have this seemingly perfectly natural capacity?

But that's just me, I'm sure others feel the exact opposite!

The natural inclination to believe in deities could also be explained by the anthropomorphic mental framework being passed down from generation to generation.

 

[alkemyst]

While close to 30% of this generation is agnostic/atheist; the total world's population is only about 15% that are truly unbelieving of a God or higher power/spirit.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Firstly, I don't have time to watch an hour long video, secondly, I am really not interested in what I call the atheist version of Christian fundamentalism. I've read and heard enough from DDH (Dawkins, Dennett, & Harris) to where I am well-aware of most of their views on the matter.

Why not come with something original?

A lot of atheists have similar talking points because critical thinking will point people in the same direction. It isn't atheists parroting each other so much as it is logic delivering us to the same place in these discussions.

This is unlike many of the faithful christians sheeple that seem to let other people do their thinking for them, then they repeat what they are told and warp reality to make it fit their beliefs. MUCH of the bible is ignored, but people pick and choose what they want the masses to believe and repeat. Atheists on the other hand come to similar conclusions because they make sense when you think about it critically.

 

[mikeymikec]

The natural inclination to believe in deities could also be explained by the anthropomorphic mental framework being passed down from generation to generation.

And/or a desire to have some sort of explanation regarding their own existence as well as the existence of the environment.

Furthermore, if it was purely/only a choice of 'would you rather believe in one of the following two options', I think most people would prefer option 1:

1 - Some sort of benevolent deity put you on this planet, you're meant to be here, you have a purpose that you're supposed to discover by living life to the full.

2 - You're here purely by chance, you have no set purpose. You'll also leave the stage with absolute certainty, but the time and way that you leave it is also purely by chance.

Religions I'm aware of then go several steps further, promising to punish the wicked and all sorts, that the benevolent deity will have your back just when you need it provided you're a good person, etc. It's a pretty tempting proposition.

 

[Retro Rob]

A lot of atheists have similar talking points because critical thinking will point people in the same direction. It isn't atheists parroting each other so much as it is logic delivering us to the same place in these discussions.

So what? Logic only deals with language anyway. Logic doesn't matter when weighed against reality. I can make a logical arguement that life has never existed on Mars, but upon finding life, what happens to that "logic"?

Second, atheists are delivered to the "same place" for the same reason theists are delivered to the "same place"...they simply universally agree on their lack of belief in the existence of dieties, other than that, they agree on very little.

Colour me shocked!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Firstly, I don't have time to watch an hour long video, secondly, I am really not interested in what I call the atheist version of Christian fundamentalism. I've read and heard enough from DDH (Dawkins, Dennett, & Harris) to where I am well-aware of most of their views on the matter.

Why not come with something original?

Why re-invent the wheel? Your request is not unlike demanding a new falsification of the luminiferous aether. If the arguments and evidence are sound, why should anyone "come with something original"?

Are you purporting to have valid refutations of the arguments presented by the atheists you mentioned? I know that I haven't seen them. It seems to me that if you want anyone to "come with something original" it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the outstanding arguments are inadequate in some way.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So what? Logic only deals with language anyway. Logic doesn't matter when weighed against reality. I can make a logical arguement that life has never existed on Mars, but upon finding life, what happens to that "logic"?

Second, atheists are delivered to the "same place" for the same reason theists are delivered to the "same place"...they simply universally agree on their lack of belief in the existence of dieties, other than that, they agree on very little.

Colour me shocked!

What is reality to you? Could you plainly say what you believe to be reality regarding god? I don't believe christianity is any different or any more 'correct' than the many, many other religions that have come and gone and had their time in the sun.

 

[Retro Rob]

What is reality to you? Could you plainly say what you believe to be reality regarding god? I don't believe christianity is any different or any more 'correct' than the many, many other religions that have come and gone and had their time in the sun.

You said that just because atheists come to the "same place", it's becasue of critical thinking...that's not true, as anything other than issues regarding the existence of God doesn't gather them to the same logical place.

They simply agree...nothing more, nothing less, nothing different than your average group of believers.