Welcome all you new folks! It’s great to see all the different perspectives offered on what is a rather freighted topic. I self-identify as an atheist but I am absorbed by questions of belief and knowledge. Culturally we do seem to be entering a genuinely post-Christian phase and I am fascinated with how this will play out. (I gave a general sketch of my perspective back in a post in this thread at 11:55 pm on 01/26/2020 if anyone cares.)
So some questions-
What convinced you that god did or did not exist? Was it really an argument or a personal spiritual experience? What kind of god do you believe or not believe in?
ps I have absolutely no interest in converting anyone to my position. I want to clarify my own ideas and encountering other perspectives helps me do that. Resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weakness not strength.
RickR said
With no proof that God exists or doesn’t exist, it seems to me that being an agnostic makes more sense than being an atheist.
As an atheist I would say that in the face of a lack of evidence one way or another one should not suspend judgement but withhold belief. I take it as a principle that one should not believe anything without sufficient cause. Why exclude the god concept from this formulation?
Well, we disagree. I believe being an atheist is believing without sufficient cause. If you can’t prove it, why believe it? Same goes for belief in God. If you can’t prove it, why believe it? Let’s be fair (and logical) to both sides. I don’t for a minute say this applies to you—-but I find an arrogance in many atheists that is unsettling. Not to mention special pleading. Have you read Bart’s 1/12/2020 post titled “A Revelatory Moment about God?”
RickR said
Well, we disagree. I believe being an atheist is believing without sufficient cause. If you can’t prove it, why believe it? Same goes for belief in God. If you can’t prove it, why believe it? Let’s be fair (and logical) to both sides. I don’t for a minute say this applies to you—-but I find an arrogance in many atheists that is unsettling. Not to mention special pleading. Have you read Bart’s 1/12/2020 post titled “A Revelatory Moment about God?”
What functional difference is there between the “unknowable god” and a god who doesn’t exist? What is it about the god concept that makes us so desirous to hold onto it in the face of a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever?
A clarifying note: I’m not too keen on using the word “proof” here. All truth claims are provisional; absolute certainty is impossible. What I ask for is evidence, some compelling reason to think that god might exist. Lacking evidence, I lack belief. I point out that this is the attitude most people exhibit for most things – except religion.
A guess we could go around and around, but at the end we just disagree. I appreciate Bart’s humility in his 1/12/2020 post “A Revelatory Moment about God”. I’m skeptical about those on both extremes: atheists on one end and Christian fundamentalists on the other. I think both sides lack humility and are closed minded.
RickR said
A guess we could go around and around, but at the end we just disagree. I appreciate Bart’s humility in his 1/12/2020 post “A Revelatory Moment about God”. I’m skeptical about those on both extremes: atheists on one end and Christian fundamentalists on the other. I think both sides lack humility and are closed minded.
I’m sorry you feel we’re just going “around and around”. I’m trying to articulate a position, not convince you of anything. I’m not sure what exactly is arrogant or extreme or close minded about wishing to proportion my belief to the evidence. Perhaps you can help me to understand?
Well, I can’t for the life of me see how you are “proportioning your belief to the evidence.” There IS no evidence. That’s why I believe agnosticism is the only reasonable, logical and intellectually honest approach. And in my view there IS a “functional difference between the “unknowable god” and a god who doesn’t exist.” That difference is, if God is unknowable it doesn’t mean you can take a leap of faith and say that categorically means there is no God.So we clearly disagree, and I doubt we will bridge that gap. But I certainly respect your opinion.
RickR said
Well, I can’t for the life of me see how you are “proportioning your belief to the evidence.” There IS no evidence. That’s why I believe agnosticism is the only reasonable, logical and intellectually honest approach. And in my view there IS a “functional difference between the “unknowable god” and a god who doesn’t exist.” That difference is, if God is unknowable it doesn’t mean you can take a leap of faith and say that categorically means there is no God.So we clearly disagree, and I doubt we will bridge that gap. But I certainly respect your opinion.
There IS no evidence. Precisely. Lots of evidence, lots of belief. Some evidence, some belief. No evidence, no belief. That’s what I mean by proportional.
What “leap of faith” is required not to believe in something for which there is no evidence? Who is stating categorically that there is no God? All truth claims are provisional, subject to revision, update, or disconfirmation. Absolute certainty is a chimera. If someone produces evidence then I’ll revise my opinion.
Robert said
mnels said
I think … certain “first-cause” style arguments for God’s existence succeed.
Welcome. If someone believes in God, they can be convinced that a proof for his existence succeeds. If someone doesn’t believe in God, such proofs typically do not succeed. How can you prove the existence of something that (for Thomist’s) cannot even be defined? Do you prove that something exists, but you don’t know what that something is?
Thanks, glad to be on the forums.
Regarding the first point. there is a difference between an argument being sound and an argument being persuasive. An argument being sound means that its premises are true and that the conclusion follows from the premises. Whether or not any given person will be persuaded depends on a number of personal factors, which means that people are sometimes persuaded by bad arguments, and not persuaded by good ones.
Regarding definitions, classical theists argue that it can be established that an all-powerful, utterly simple, non-composite, uncaused being necessarily exists. Since these properties are commonly ascribed to God, it is reasonable to hold that if the prime-mover exists, and the prime-move necessarily has these properties, then God exists. You are right to say that God cannot be comprehensively defined, but that does mean that nothing whatsoever can be known about God.
RickR said
I thought YOU were stating categorically that there is no God, and therefore that is why you are an atheist. Sorry if I misunderstand you…but it is a genuine misunderstanding. Is you can’t say that there is no God, well, that seems to be closer to agnosticism. Can you clarify?
Sorry about the delay in responding.
Defining atheism as the absolute certainty that a god does not exist is a common colloquial definition of atheism. The problem is that I’ve never met any self-identified atheist who actually thought this way. Atheism is generally accompanied with a corresponding skepticism that precludes absolute certainty as a valid category. All truth claims are provisional, subject to refinement or disconfirmation. So if you ask me if I have certainty that there is no god then the answer is no. You can regard this as a form of agnosticism if you wish but if you ask me if I believe in god then the answer is also no.
Based on my current level of observation and experience I can see no compelling reason to think that such an entity exists. So I don’t believe such exists and so I identify as an atheist. If I am presented with some compelling evidence then I am willing to change my mind on the matter. My default position is lack of belief rather than suspension of belief. Why treat the question of god’s existence any different than any other truth claim?
The concept of the unknowable god just doesn’t make any sense to me. If the existence of god by definition cannot impinge in any way on my life or existence then, well, who cares? And I might also add, how would you even know if god is unknowable?
mnels wrote
Regarding definitions, classical theists argue that it can be established that an all-powerful, utterly simple, non-composite, uncaused being necessarily exists. Since these properties are commonly ascribed to God, it is reasonable to hold that if the prime-mover exists, and the prime-move necessarily has these properties, then God exists. You are right to say that God cannot be comprehensively defined, but that does mean that nothing whatsoever can be known about God.
My question is, does it really makes sense to refer to the concept of “god” apart from the actual religious traditions and the gods they worship in those traditions? The abstract philosopher’s god seems rather thin gruel.
So if I ask you do you believe in God, you’re answer is no. What if I asked you “do you believe there is no God?” what would your answer be? I assume it would be yes, but I could be wrong. I would like, just for clarity, to get your answer to the latter question.I don’t think there is a compelling reason to believe God exists. But I also don’t think there is a compelling reason to believe He does not exist. That’s why I think agnosticism makes more sense than atheism.
RickR said
So if I ask you do you believe in God, you’re answer is no. What if I asked you “do you believe there is no God?” what would your answer be? I assume it would be yes, but I could be wrong. I would like, just for clarity, to get your answer to the latter question.I don’t think there is a compelling reason to believe God exists. But I also don’t think there is a compelling reason to believe He does not exist. That’s why I think agnosticism makes more sense than atheism.
“do you believe there is no God?”
Yes. I am not simply describing my inner state of consciousness. I am making a truth claim about reality. But note my earlier comments about provisional claims and certainty! Belief and certainty are not joined at the hip.
My compelling reason to believe there is no god is precisely the lack of a compelling reason to believe there is a god. With no compelling reason to believe why suspend judgement? All I can tell you is if someone can present a compelling reason to believe I am perfectly open to changing my mind. (After all I already changed my mind once. I spent my first 25 years on this planet as a convinced Christian.)
“My compelling reason to believe there is no god is precisely the lack of a compelling reason to believe there is a god.” OK, so is there a compelling reason NOT to believe in God? This is a point we differ on. If there is no compelling reason not to believe in God, my view is agnosticism is the most rational and logical position. You haven’t commented directly on Bart’s 1/12/2020 post: “A Revelatory Moment about God.” I am really curious what you think of this post. At the end of the day, we just disagree. I think we have both stated our positions pretty well.
You haven’t commented directly on Bart’s 1/12/2020 post: “A Revelatory Moment about God.”
Oh sure, happy to. Very interesting stuff!
So I’m not at all advocating we return to the religious constructions of previous centuries and millennia. I’m just saying that the possibility that there really *might* be orders of existence higher than I can imagine strikes me just now as completely plausible. Why not? Who says *I* can figure it all out. If superior forms of intelligence and will do exist, I would literally have no way of knowing. And how many different forms/levels could there be? God knows. So to speak.
I take Prof Ehrman’s point. It would be foolish to simply assume some form of “higher” consciousness is impossible. Consciousness is very mysterious as are all phenomena poorly understood. How did physics become chemistry, and chemistry become biology, and biology become, what? Awake?
Perhaps, as some have speculated, consciousness is an emergent property. Individual water molecules are not “wet”, for example. The property of “wetness” emerges from the constellation of these individual molecules. But no one would claim that “wetness” is supernatural. The evidence is overwhelming that consciousness is a byproduct of biochemistry. If we change our biochemistry our consciousness changes as well. (Drink a six pack of beer or smoke a joint or hyperventilate or get dehydrated.) It seems not an unreasonable presumption that any form of “higher consciousness” would be the product of the same natural forces that produced ourselves – and of course the panthers.
It is true that the panther cannot enter into our consciousness as we would not be able to enter into the consciousness of some higher order of being. But the panther can respond to the byproducts of our consciousness. It at least knows enough to get out of the way of the bulldozer in the rain forest. In the same way we would know to stay out of the way of the byproducts of the presence of a higher being.
But if the high consciousness does not impinge on our reality in any discernible way then what difference does its existence make? I ask again, what is the difference between the unknowable god and no god at all? A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Where is god’s bulldozer?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)