What are your thoughts?
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
SkepticalOne wrote:
What are your thoughts?
It suffers from terms being too vague, and the logic doesn’t follow.
What do you mean by the terms “God”, “perfectly loving” and especially “exists”. How do you define “exist” as it would apply to God? Do you mean physically exist? Conceptually? Exist in what form? In step 2, what is the logical connection, why would it follow that nonbelief does not occur? Step 1 has not been established, nor has step 2, they aren't logical statements, they are just declarations of opinion, seems to be a matter of asserting beliefs rather than establishing a logical argument.
It feels like this is another instance of an argument where nobody believes in the God you don't believe in.
If your God was real he wouldn't need YOU to argue his existence.
FLRW wrote:
If your God was real he wouldn't need YOU to argue his existence.
Who argued God's existence?
I agree some of your criticism is valid. I will post another iteration in a new thread. Thank you for your input.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god. Of course we might disagree with how a perfectly loving god might manifest. And if there's a way for a perfectly loving god to manifest while slowing reasonable unbelief, that could disprove the premises
linate wrote:
I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god. Of course we might disagree with how a perfectly loving god might manifest. And if there's a way for a perfectly loving god to manifest while slowing reasonable unbelief, that could disprove the premises
I’m serious about this line of questioning, it’s a sincere attempt 2to understand.
Declaring that God does not exist is very popular, trendy even, all the kewl kids are doing it, but whenever I ask what exactly they mean by that statement, I never get any answer beyond “it means I’m smarter than believers”.
In the unlikely event that you guys want to be taken seriously, you need to clarify what you mean when you use the term “exist”. If you mean, doesn’t exist as an object, well duh, believers don’t believe that either, if you mean you don’t believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky that grants wishes, well duh again, believers beyond grade school don’t either.
Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?
Do you think "space" exists, how about "time", "mathematics", "consciousness", in what way do these things exist.
What are the characteristics that something that exists must possess, that God does not possess?
Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?
Why do you say there is science that says there are realms outside our four dimensions?
I agree but I wonder how you'd answer it
Do you think "space" exists, how about "time", "mathematics", "consciousness", in what way do these things exist.
What are the characteristics that something that exists must possess, that God does not possess?
Interesting questions
I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god.
I think a perfectly loving god would choose to make itself known to its creations.
If you reply to my post, I will get a notification and we can have a legitimate back.and forth.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
It's fair to think think a loving god would make itself unequivocally known to humans but thats just one possibility. Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence? If that's possible, then reasonable unbelief would still exist despite a loving god existing.
Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing. The large majority of atheists come back after an nde believing God. The ones who didn't convert simply were given no knowledge one way or another on the god question. Of course these points hinge on the credibility of the science of ndes but I think the credibility is strong but thats another debate.
Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence?
I dont find that very plausible. A loving parent doesn't walk away if it can be helped.
Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing.
This is a tangent, but NDEs are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely. I personally do not find NDEs a compelling argument for deities or the 'great beyond'.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
Would a loving God create the 7 Little Johnstons?
Who argued God's existence?
Jesus?
linate wrote:
Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?
Why do you say there is science that says there are realms outside our four dimensions?
I agree but I wonder how you'd answer it
There are many examples, I’ll touch on a few.
First, science tells us straight up that our four-dimensional reality of matter and energy is roughly 5% of the Universe, the other 95% is made up of dark matter and dark energy. This would be matter and energy that we cannot interact with, and which has none of the characteristics of what we know to be matter and energy in our four-dimensional reality. Consequently, 95% of the Universe exists as a region of being that transcends our four-dimensional frame of reference.
Cosmologists also tell us the Universe is expanding, this raises the question of what it is expanding into, this implies that greater reality in which our Universe has it’s being.
Science tells us the Universe is temporally finite, roughly 14 Billion years old, matter, energy, time, and space came into being at this time, there must be a realm of existence that transcends time and space, and in which the Universe came into being.
Implicit in science’s fundamental law of cause-and-effect states that everything that exists or occurs has its cause in what came before. Nothing can come about that did not already exist in some extremely attenuated way. The potential for all things that have occurred or will occur inherently exists in the structure to begin with. There is a transcendent realm of existence in which the Universe came into being and what happened over time was an unfolding of the inward properties of the universe that were inherent in the background structure from the beginning. That is explicitly implied in science’s fundamental premise of cause and effect. Without that premise, the entire intellectual construct of science falls apart, and the shoe is on the other foot, it is science that doesn’t exist.
These are just a few of the examples where “science says there are realms outside our four dimensions”
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater.
The contention that there are no levels of reality except for those of science is not itself a scientific truth.
SkepticalOne wrote:
Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence?
I dont find that very plausible. A loving parent doesn't walk away if it can be helped.
So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”. Not really a very compelling argument.
I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.
Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing.
This is a tangent, but NDEs are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely.
Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?
I personally do not find NDEs a compelling argument for deities or the 'great beyond'.
Your statement is heavily influenced by your cultural and religious background too; experiences occur within a context. If you have never had an NDE, then of course you wouldn’t find it “compelling”.
You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?
FLRW wrote:
Who argued God's existence?
Jesus?
I've read the reference document, but I must have missed where that is argued, do you have a chapter and verse so I can take a look?
So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”.
A perfectly loving god would desire a personal relationship with humanity. Relationships require all sides to know each other. It stands to reason, such a god would want humanity to know it exists.
I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.
No one believes in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god? That's certainly not true.
Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?
What I mean is that the experiences vary widely. If your argument is that NDEs are evidence for a particular deity, then you would need to discount many other deities reprsented in the expeirences. You would also need to discount experiences where no deity is represented.
You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?
No, why would I? I dont consider it to be evidence of the supernatural though. It could be individuals are glimpsing many, many other realms, but it seems much more likely to be the result of a brain in some sort of trama. Occams razor favors the latter.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
SkepticalOne wrote:
So, what your proof comes down to is, “If you were God, you’d make it so everyone believes in you, everyone does not believe in God, therefore God must not exist”.
A perfectly loving god would desire a personal relationship with humanity. Relationships require all sides to know each other. It stands to reason, such a god would want humanity to know it exists.
OK, I stand corrected, the argument is “If you were God you would want humanity to know you exists, everyone does not believe God exists, therefore God doesn’t exist?” I think you are working backwards, you are starting with your conclusion and then defining the subject accordingly.
I saw where this was going in my initial reply, “nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in”.
No one believes in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent god? That's certainly not true.
You are postulating a God that makes everyone believe in his existence, I’m not aware of any person, or any religion in which that is the God of their understanding. As far as I know, nobody believes in the God you don’t believe in.
If your argument is that an “omnibenevolent, omnipotent god” would not want human beings to have free will, OK, but you haven't made that argument. It certainly doesn’t “stand to reason” that a loving God would want a relationship in which the person was not free to choose to be in that relationship.
Once again, I’m not aware of any religion or individual in which that is the God of their understanding.
Yes, an NDE is an experience that people report having, as such, of course the reports “are heavily influenced by cultural and religious backgrounds and vary widely”. That is the case with all experiences, isn’t it?
What I mean is that the experiences vary widely. If your argument is that NDEs are evidence for a particular deity, then you would need to discount many other deities reprsented in the expeirences. You would also need to discount experiences where no deity is represented.
If a person that has an NDE interprets the experience as evidence of the God of their understanding, I don’t think they have any obligation to discount other interpretations or other experiences, as you said, it’s heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
You aren’t challenging the fact that these people actually had the near-death-experience, are you?
No, why would I? I dont consider it to be evidence of the supernatural though.
OK, and your conclusion is heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
It could be individuals are glimpsing many, many other realms, but it seems much more likely to be the result of a brain in some sort of trama. Occams razor favors the latter.
I think how it is interpreted is a matter of the individual's prior metaphysical assumptions, different assumptions, not necessarily fewer assumptions, so Occam’s razor isn’t applicable.
I think you are working backwards, you are starting with your conclusion and then defining the subject accordingly.
I assumed it was understood this is not my argument. Shellenberg introduced it 30 years ago or so.
If your argument is that an “omnibenevolent, omnipotent god” would not want human beings to have free will,
First off, knowing someone exists doesnt force love or obedience. Secondly, if knowledge shapes the path of free will (which I believe it does) then the absence of knowledge does that too. The free will defense cuts both ways.
If a person that has an NDE interprets the experience as evidence of the God of their understanding, I don’t think they have any obligation to discount other interpretations or other experiences, as you said, it’s heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
Are you arguing NDEs are personal revelations? If so, even assuming what they experienced is 100% real, it's not evidence for me or anyone else. That one person is the only one who experienced their NDE.
OK, and your conclusion is heavily influenced by their cultural and religious background.
What?
I think how it is interpreted is a matter of the individual's prior metaphysical assumptions, different assumptions, not necessarily fewer assumptions, so Occam’s razor isn’t applicable.
Occam's razor doesnt lose its edge if the unnecessary assumptions and unproven entities were accepted long ago.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
Well as to 95 percent of our universe being beyond our grasp, I wouldnt say that proves anything beyond our 4d world but its certainly a possibility. I personally think it has something to do with the afterlife or the gradient of existence. Of course thats just my belief but my only point is what you say isn't proven. Im not even sure id say its implied
As to cause and effect logic, I agree its implied there exists a cause other than our universe as its cause. We have no science to indicate our universe always existed and thermodynamics indicated something of greater energy caused the universe and the cause and effect thing implies a transcendent existence.
So all to say I dont think we can prove beyond our 4d based on what you said but I agree its implied
I think ndes and nde science straight forwardly indicates something beyond our 4d. I might even say its more than implied, its a matter of deductive logic. Actually now that I think about it it might be inductive logic. Not sure id have to think about it
There was a study done. Christian elements and jesus are a core phenomenon of ndes, they happen at a much greater frequency than nonchristian ndes, not just hsppening more but at a higher rate. Ndes of other faith are so rare and unreliable qualitatively and open to interpretation that we can't draw too many conclusions about them. All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. And as I said most atheists come back believing in God. If ndes are more objective than conventional wisdom says, then perhaps we can draw fairly conclusions about their content.
See above
What if uncertainty about god was necessary to fully engage with him? What if we as beings can only ever encounter love at its fullest, or whatever other value and meaning and purpose you have, by combining faith and free will to will your self into a voluntary self willed creation?
I posted about the purpose of life even without religion and god
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/pa/even-without-religion-and-purely-from-a-skeptical-point-of-view-how-we-live-might-matter-if-consciousness-continues-after-death
But the elements god and perhaps christianity add are that love is the greatest good. Certainly a person can find meaning and purpose outside of religion and god but if the person wanted to go deepest into what actually is the greatest meaning and purpose, god and perhaps Christianity are the next step.
I have another essay on embracing life with the purpose of faith and god and religion but I suspect you wouldn't even accept the above logic in the link so I won't bother looking up the link
What if engaging with uncertainty is the path to the next life or highest good? What if faith is putting meat on the bones of engaging god and uncertainty?
My point ultimately is maybe there's a reason god has been historically ambiguous but that shouldn't imply he don't exist, as you claim
2. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur.
This does not follow simply because a perfectly loving God would allow man's free agency, not withdraw it to jealously force our belief.
If your God was real he wouldn't need YOU to argue his existence.
No, because ytou assume a "perfectly loving God" would force our belief in His existence. That argument fails since force [coercion] would not align with
His perfect love.
Yes, perfect love.
Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
What if uncertainty about god was necessary to fully engage with him? What if we as beings can only ever encounter love at its fullest, or whatever other value and meaning and purpose you have, by combining faith and free will to will your self into a voluntary self willed creation?
What if engaging with uncertainty is the path to the next life or highest good? What if faith is putting meat on the bones of engaging god and uncertainty?
What if ...not that? No offense, but it sounds like you're grasping at straws. I would appreciate less fluff and more evidence/reason based responses.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
This does not follow simply because a perfectly loving God would allow man's free agency, not withdraw it to jealously force our belief.
Love and obedience are not forced by knowledge of existence nor is agency thwarted by it.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
linate wrote:
There was a study done. Christian elements and jesus are a core phenomenon of ndes, they happen at a much greater frequency than nonchristian ndes, not just hsppening more but at a higher rate. Ndes of other faith are so rare and unreliable qualitatively and open to interpretation that we can't draw too many conclusions about them. All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. And as I said most atheists come back believing in God. If ndes are more objective than conventional wisdom says, then perhaps we can draw fairly conclusions about their content.
As a skeptic how do you view this science? Do you deny science simply because it contradicts your worldview?
