I have frequented a few atheist forums before but as you all know I've been in here for a relatively short time...
But I'm wondering, has any theist actually attempted to answer the main question in a coherant and logical manner?
The question being, of course...
Can you prove god exists?
I've seen some wonderfully articulate and philosophical posts by some theists, but so far they have all had a premise that skips the main point.
And when pushed on the matter they either tap dance around it or state that they would need to start another thread to discuss that.
But being as I have only been here briefly I'm curious to if it has actually been answered?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Randomhero: "Can you prove god exists?"
I've been here a bit over a year. I've seen many attempts by theists to answer this question, but I wouldn't describe any of them as coherent or logical. They seem to boil down into a few predictable categories.
The answer according to three-year-olds: God exists because I want him to exist, and because my mummy and daddy told me he exists.
The utilitarian answer: God exists because bananas are conveniently wrapped and shaped.
The deterministic answer: None of the billiard balls can start moving without a cue ball.
The near death experience answer: Someone somewhere saw a bright light and faces while unconscious from terminal constipation.
The morality argument: Without god we'd all be rapists and murderers like you atheists.
If there was a real answer, it would have been on CNN.
I haven't seen any theist answer the question if god exist. They can never give any testable evidence. Even if theist could prove a god, then which god is it that humans worship, they all think their god or gods are real.
I have been here a while and NONE have answered that question. They avoid it at all cost. Usually, they do what CyberLN says they do. They use "word salad" and don't answer the question. Ironically, many theists ask this question and offer inane explanations when they come here.
"It all boils down to" at some point, every believer has a gap in their sequence of logic. They never prove their god, never actually make a connection that their god did anything.
They can't answer the question because they ignore the facts.
If that question were actually answered to anybody's satisfaction would this place exist?
They've had 2000 years to prove it and we atheists still exist, so... If anyone could prove it (not just in a forum, with logical arguments but in a lab), she/he would win a Nobel Prize. Don't forget that The Great Newton (the scientist they seem to love more), spent many time trying to prove their bs and he desisted, because he realized none of it made sense.
With all the power, money and other resources Churches have, they've failed to prove it over and over again...
I predict that in 2000 years from now (if global warming doesn't kill all human life), the few theists that still remain would still appeal to faith (and things that we atheists -ex-believers- do not understand because we're sooo ignorant to feel them) whenever they feel trap in a debate.
I feel in 2000 years if we continue at the pace of scientific advancement we have now, and we do not wipe our selves out, our communication abilities will be so refined and great, that ignorance will be impossible unless it is willful ignorance. That to believe in god would for all intents and purpose require living under a rock and not taking part in the vast information system that is available to anyone that wants it.
In 20 short years, we went from finding and discussing with people why god may not exist, a difficult and possibly quite dangerous affair, to the point now, where; for many it is a few second google search away from answers and discussion in the privacy of our own homes with near anonymity. And for the most oppressed it is a VPN + tunnel + google search away on a device billions of people in the world carry around in their pocket.
I imagine in 2000 years the technology will exist where people can record their exact experiences as their minds received it. And a full recording of their lives as they experienced it. People would be able to peer inside the minds of their "religious leaders" and they will not like what they find. And certainly will not find proof of god. Sure religious leaders will try to explain that the technology is wrong and against them, "the devils work" but it would be like trying to tell followers today to trust their preacher that says "do not look me up on google" because their is a bunch of lies about me being a child molester on the internet, "the internet is the devils work."
Theism wouldn't want to, nor would it need to prove god real. It would be counter-productive. If there was revelation I'm pretty sure all the current and historical trappings of theology would be instantly vaporized, the money would stop flowing in because people would not need their religious memes anymore, and the world's military industrial complex would disassemble itself, regroup and take on interstellar travel in a global collective (or another hardware intensive pursuit). All kinds of good things would come from revelation but the current usurpers of for-profit faith-based systems (religions) have no use for it. Only atheists make a big ado about it.
No. Theists trot out the most simplistic evidence for their faith. Earlier this week, one of these idiots literally presented the "look around you" argument for the existence of their gods or god
Ah yes, apologies! I should have phrased myself better by saying, have they 'tried' to explain if a god exists.
Obviously I know, it has and never will be proven! But I was curious to is a theist has actually even made an attempt at an coherent answer.
Philosophical posturing and word salad has seemed to be what I have noticed in the main, neither of which hold any credence.
Have you tried listening to Trent Horn or reading him? He's participated a a number of debates and he can answer atheist arguments pretty well. It's easy for atheists to accuse theists of not being logical or not being coherent but when Trent asks his opponent what's illogical or incoherent about his arguments, I don't hear a logical or coherent answer from his opponent.
Search for Trent Horn vs Raphael Lataster. It's a 2 hour video but you don't really need to see them talk so you can basically listen to it in the background, which is how I listened to it. He's also debated another atheist on this matter against Jim Travis but I think Jim Travis just wasn't prepared at all.
You mean that snake oil salesman you mentioned in another thread?
Hi, Jon. Given that you seem like a reasonable guy who wants to engage in an honest debate, I'll open a new thread to discuss the initial arguments by Trent Horn from this video in which he tries to demonstrate the existance of God by philosophical statements.
Thank you Jon, I will certainly look in to him and get back to you on here.
And just to add, I never said all theists are illogical etc... nor am I implying that you said that either, I'm just making a little side note.
It's just the ones I've seen on here who post an assertion, never back it up with evidence and every argument presented by them can be regressed to 'can you prove god exists?'
This is never answered from what I've seen.
Just wanted to make that clear pal.
Thanks again for your input!
Perhaps we should rather ask 'Who would benefit from the postulation that there is a God? Who would rise to the top of a society who could be persuaded to believe in such a being?' I find many sinister motives as soon as I begin to view religions through this filter. Most religions of which I have any knowledge (I admit many of you will be better informed than I) seem to be well designed to enable social control and I emphasise the word design here.
'God created man', we're told
'In his own image' but, I hold
That what is much more likely is
That 'Man created God in his'.
Yes, religions are a veeery lucrative businesses (donatives, public subsidies, tax exemptions, volunteer labour...) and institutional power boosts them because it's a way of having a submisive population, as Catholics say, sheeps. You can add whatever you want in their minds (justification for wars, crimes, slavery, bigotry, economical inequality...) when it's needed.
When people develop critical thinking they do not question just their religion, they use to questioning everything. And that's very dangerous for the power. Imagine a USA religion-free...
I feel as if I have "tried" as you say. The problem is that "proof" is an uninteresting and ambiguous word. For example, to a theist, a simple apple can be proof of God. But to an Darwinist, that same apple is proof of evolution.
Evidence is subjective. We can all agree with the observations, but disagree as to their interpretation.
Not being able to see how everything can be used as evidence for a Creator is really for lack of trying. I personally don't believe in the panspermia theory for example, but I have no problem seeing how someone might.
@John 61X Breezy: "For example, to a theist, a simple apple can be proof of God. But to an Darwinist, that same apple is proof of evolution."
Darwinists could analyze the apple's DNA and show how it was related to other existing or extinct species. Darwinists could also show how intelligent design (by man) had shaped the apple to fit man's needs through selective breeding. What could a theist say about an apple?
Something about the founder of field of the Genetics being a Christian who worked with plants at a monastery, tells me a theist may have a lot to say about apples.
But did Mendel say anything theistic about his peas and bees?
More than likely, kinda hard to be a monk and not say anything theistic.
But you're missing my point. I don't want to explain how an apple can prove God, I want YOU to think of ways in which an apple can be evidence for God.
If you are not able to see the world from someone else's perspective, even if you disagree, its simply for lack of trying.
@John 61X Breezy: "I want YOU to think of ways in which an apple can be evidence for God."
You're preaching to the converted. I grew up singing songs and hearing stories about how the good lord made all things bright and beautiful. But the older I got and the more I learned, the smaller god got.
I'm sure it's counterintuitive to think that something like an apple evolved spontaneously. An apple is perfect food for humans and horses. It's also a starter kit, complete with instruction book, for building a new apple tree. Apple seeds can pass right through the gut of an animal and out the other end, so the apple tree also a strategy for broadcasting it's seeds to remote locations. These things are also true of cherries, peaches, and every other tree fruit.
So yes I can see why many people would see an apple as the handiwork of god. Can you see how a family of plants could evolve into roses, apples, pears, etc., over millions of years, and how intelligent design by humans could selectively transform the fruit of those plants into ever better fruit and bigger and better flowers?
I do see it. In fact as a wannabe scientist, I see theories as tools. I don't care if they are right or wrong or how well they model reality, I care about how good they are at producing hypothesis. Evolution is a shovel that I can use to dig up hidden gems. Sometimes its a good shovel, sometimes its a horrible shovel and I have to switch to a different shovel.
Theories don't require my belief, they require my understanding.
John 61X Breezy: "sometimes its a horrible shovel and I have to switch to a different shovel."
What other shovels are there that you could use to dig up knowledge and understanding about the history and relationships of life on this planet?
No clue, I only use shovels to dig up knowledge about psychology and neuroscience, and we have several. We have the behavioral shovel, the cognitive shovel, the humanistic shovel, the biological shovel, the evolutionary shovel (different from biology), the sociocultural shovel and so forth.
No theological shovels?
I personally use one where it works, and don't where it doesn't. Theology falls under the category of philosophy, and scientists import their favorite philosophies into their work all the time. For example, a number of psychologists are determinists. They reject free will on a philosophical basis, not a scientific basis. My theology allows to consider free will as a possibility, and I also find it is scientifically defendable as well.
That seems rather cavalier.
------------------------------
And that is just; well odd.
Look at the different types of map projections that exist. Do any of them model reality perfectly? No, some of them are the complete opposite of what the earth is really like. But they all serve a specific purpose. They all get something right that the others don't. That's what theories are. My concern is knowing what map to use when I need to do something. Not debating about which map looks more like the earth.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Why? You just told us you don't care how well they model reality!
If you didn't understand I don't know how to better explain it.
Pages