Does Anyone Still Believe in God?

by LaurenM 447 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • prologos
    prologos
    cappytan2 hours ago

    Just because Science can't currently explain something doesn't mean that's proof of a deity. conversely,

    neither is a new discovery by scientific specialists proof that there is no creator, that the thing must have made itself.

    The fact that we have natural laws to discover, space to move in, Energy to propel us, matter to live with, time to do it in, are to this deist enough to be thankful for. The fact that we do not see further benevolent tinkering does not mean we should not bother with research, which, if nothing else will uncover more extra-ordinary works. If I can bother you with an illustration:

    You discover that a large amount of money has been deposited into your account, by an untraceable source.It is a gift. No strings attached. You suspect there is more of it where it came from. what would your reaction be?

    well, must be a fluke in the banking system? or, well I am going to get to the bottom of this? now that have the leisure to do it? useless to bother with questions like that?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    For some believers, there simply is no argument that will talk them out of belief. Here's the way it goes for them:

    The Dragon In My Garage

    by Carl Sagan

    "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

    "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

    "Where's the dragon?" you ask.

    "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

    "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

    Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

    "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

    You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

    "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

    Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

    Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

    Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

    Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

  • stuffwotifink
    stuffwotifink
    It seems to me that in the scrabble to get believers to define their gods - atheists often make claims like "The evidence against "god" is overwhelmingly strong", without ever defining the god which they are themselves talking about.
    If it's good for the goose... No?

    So many arguments against the proposition of a god hinge upon the rather easy bait of the biblical model. A child can (many have) poke holes in that model. But then the claims of defeat are leveled at the very notion of god itself.

    There is not and can not be, evidence in the material universe for an immaterial thing, ffs (even if we start by granting the existence of said immaterial thing, which, for the record, I don't). Only inference. Asking for it seems naive to the subject matter at hand.

    "god" is not synonymous with "Jebus" or "Yahweh".

    Also - the fact that a god doesn't intercede or make itself known, means nothing unless one has a reason to believe such a being would do so.
    Perhaps it's best to leave speculating about what a god should or shouldn't do, to believers... Jus sayin.
    Why anyone has reason to expect anything about the behaviour of a thing they don't believe in, I can't begin to imagine.

    Any god not defined in a way that's at once both servile to man - yet omnieverybloodything, perfect and universal - yet comprehensible by the minds of mankind, is dismissed as "meaningless" or "pointless".
    Makes me laugh with my face.

    Even if there was a creator, so what? Where do you go from there? What is your next option? Choose who's concept of a creator is correct? More supposition? Are you going to worship it? Why would you? If it's real it clearly wants nothing to do with this planet. So again, WHAT IS THE POINT?
    Yes. A million times yes. You are now my god. I shall defend your existence upon this forum!

  • cofty
    cofty
    atheists often make claims like "The evidence against "god" is overwhelmingly strong", without ever defining the god which they are themselves talking about. If it's good for the goose... No?

    No. I have specifically said many times that the the god of theism does not exist.

    If somebody wishes to propose a different god then go ahead and define it and let's talk.

    There is not and can not be, evidence in the material universe for an immaterial thing, ffs

    Of course there can be. A creator could have written "Hi I'm god I made this" in the DNA of every living thing. He could have written a book that contains knowledge that was unknowable by non-supernatural means.

    Also - the fact that a god doesn't intercede or make itself known, means nothing unless one has a reason to believe such a being would do so.

    Theism makes this very claim. It's only reasonable to hold it up to the light.

    Perhaps it's best to leave speculating about what a god should or shouldn't do, to believers... Jus sayin.
    Why anyone has reason to expect anything about the behaviour of a thing they don't believe in, I can't begin to imagine.
    Why would we not want to test the grandiose claims of theists?
    Any god not defined in a way that's at once both servile to man - yet omnieverybloodything, perfect and universal - yet comprehensible by the minds of mankind, is dismissed as "meaningless" or "pointless".
    Makes me laugh with my face.

    I would pay to see that.

    An absent "god" is meaningless and pointless. Occam's Razor dispenses with it.

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade

    I've heard Viv ask a million times which god? No one ever answers her. Funny.

    God is an idea with no purpose. Think about it. 'God' whoever the weak minded believe him to be at that time serves no real function. People used to see a comet and not know what it was so it was so claim *insert supernatural diety here*. You see they filled in what they didn't understand with "god". Humans have outgrown that but people still choose to hold on to this ignorance its sad. You see atoms and gravity etc it's a function and we search to understand and explain it. God is a useless idea theist force into explanation. It's useless! There is no God who gives two shits about you. He is an idea. And not even a good one.

  • stuffwotifink
    stuffwotifink
    "No. I have specifically said many times that the the god of theism does not exist."
    What you have or have not said in the past is unknown to me (and beside the point). If you stated that in this thread, I missed it.

    You are arguing against the claims of Classical Theism. (I believe you mean that - there are, after all, many theologies)

    If so, I don't think we differ in view. I think it can be shown to be logically inconsistent, as you imply. But then if it was clear to me you were only speaking only of the God of classical theism - my comment would not have contained a quote from you.
    Much of your comment is about that god, since we agree in regard to that god it seems pointless to reply to most of it.

    I would pay to see that.
    Me laughing with my face? It's what I tend to use... You use your elbow or something?

    "An absent "god" is meaningless and pointless."
    Care to explain why?
    Because you are not speaking of the god of classical theism there. "He/It" is not absent (within the theology, ofc).
    So, like I said, which god? Because you kinda need it to be an omni-thisthatandtheother god too, to level charges at it for negligence. Otherwise justifiable reasons for it's absence could be many, without rendering the god either "meaningless" or "pointless".
    Although, I tend not to speculate about the motivations and abilities of things I don't believe in.

    Occam's Razor
    Lol. To me it seems like "God dun it" it a simpler theory than the ones biochemistry offer me... I should dispense with science? (I jest, ofc)

  • cofty
    cofty

    Every time this topic comes up somebody smugly repeats the vacuous claim that "you can't prove god doesn't exist".

    My challenge every time is ask them to define what they mean by god and then we will test their claim. I have repeated this in this thread.

    I can prove the god of theism doesn't exist. I and others have done so many times in this forum. If somebody means something else by god then let's discuss that too.

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

  • prologos
    prologos

    cofty
    3 hours ago

    There are more things we don't know than things we do know. That is a given. so, why base the certainty of the atheist assumption on such limited knowledge? < 49%?

    Prologos' pedantic point about the barycenter is an example. point was not to paint your comment in a simplistic light, but open up the possibility that 'one could not make this stuff up': barycenters, the universe is full of them. finding them is one way to detect, size exoplanets and: -- around our own: makes us wobble once a month back and forth, dictates the reproductive cycle of humans, particularly if you practise the 'anti-OT' rhythm method, and the frequency about the barycenter is very closely synchronized with the mean solar rotation***. a self regulating system no doubt, packaged into the singular act of creation imho. 8) deist pure reason.

    *** The 'Earth, Moon' system and the Sun are rotating, even revolving in unison in the cosmic waltz, allowed for in Deism.

  • freemindfade
    freemindfade
    The theory of God was born out of three things in the past. Ignorance, superstition, and fear. Nothing good comes from those three things. It was founded on nothing more and since then it has done nothing except cause problems. It gives a broad stroke to explaining everything. The mere idea is the enemy of thought discovery and knowledge. A tool of the ignorance. God is a simple, false, stupid idea. There is not only no evidence of God there is no need. It's a outdated superstitious myth.
  • cofty
    cofty
    why base the certainty of the atheist assumption on such limited knowledge? < 49%?

    I don't.

    I suspect we already know 99.999% of the data that is relevant to the question of gods.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit