RogerLeeCooke

Your question seems to assume one either believes absolutely or disbelieves absolutely. I have a hierarchy of probabilities that I assign to various possibilities. The existence of God, as generally defined for me, is so far down that I give it a probability of "virtual 0." That is, it would take extremely strong prima facie evidence to make me seriously investigate the possibility. So, I'm an a-theist, a person who recognizes no gods.

Keith Russell

Tron:

For me, logic cannot contradict reality; reality is the arbiter of 'truth'. If something 'seems' logical, but it doesn't happen, then there's a flaw in one's logic somewhere.

Given that there is a great deal of evidence that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and no evidence that it can be, I believe that it is logical to believe that it cannot be created or destroyed.

Yes, we don't have all the evidence necessary to state unequivocally that energy is eternal, so full acceptance of that would not be prudent.

But, there is no reason (literally)--no evidence yet--upon which to base the belief that it MIGHT be possible for energy to be created 'ex nihilo' in a metaphysical or mystical sense.

Keith.

lcb

so roger, are you saying you havent yet "seriously investigated the possibility"?

Ryanfire

Chris,

We don't have overwhelming evidence to suggest there is or isn't a creator. Yet the whole concept of "existence" is a complex one.

Do you have overwhelming evidence to support a final answer or solution?

If we are not omniscient, how do we choose black or white? Why not shades of grey?

Don't get me wrong, Atheism/Naturalism/Science are the core of my reasoning and logic.

djf

Ok here goes.
P1: I can't prove that a god exists. (in other words there isn't one...the god is of a mystical nature)

P2: In order for something to exist it must be empirically verifiable and logically consistent.(it needs a proof and to have been observed)

P3: The majority of gods are described as not having a logical proof.(they are mystical...when they make something, poof it happens for no logical reason)

C1: A mystical god that is described as not having a proof can't exist.

C2: A non-mystical god that is described as having a proof can exist. (as a result I would think an agnostic position on such a god very good assuming it hasn't been observed)

I'd also like to adress another point in your post that I thought was very good, but that I feel is slightly flawed. To you P2 is not true because as you stated there are such things as gravity and quarks that have been consistantly observed but that no logical explanation has yet to have been provided. As a result you point out that a god that can potentially be observed, but that doesn't have a proof can exist. However, this isn't a perfect analogy. As I pointed out above the god we are dealing with here has been specifically defined as not having a proof, while such things as gravity and quarks haven't. Last I remember Newton said nothing of gravity being something that has no proof. But I do recall that being described of gods. For gravities case, I would have to say that it falls in the realm of C2...the only difference being that in addition to it being something that is claimed to have a proof, its something that has empirical evidence. This difference would cause me to believe in gravity. You also say that such things as hands exist but have no proof which I'm afraid can be proved to exist using P2. You also say that we can't know the world itself exists or anything for that matter(and I accept that you got me there), but since that applies to everything in the world(beliefs, objects, etc.)it doesn't hold merit. Thats because we define everything as existing based on this reality. Thats simply where the word "exist" is based on. Therefore your saying that we can't know anything about this world because we may just be dreaming in a world where the belief system was created there. I can throw the same thing right back at you. How do you know that the best position is to say you don't know that a god exists? Maybe your somehow being tricked by your flawed conciousness. I guess thats all I have to say.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: djf ]</p>

Theli

Ryanfire...

But atheism don't (not even strong atheism) say that god cannot exist. It says that god does not exist.
There is a difference.
If you say that X can not exist, then you have ruled out the possibility of X.
If you say that X does not exist, you do so in relation to your own knowledge. You cannot say that something exists that have lacking probability based on possible future evidence.
You can say that X probably exist, if X lacks evidence but has high probability.

The AntiChris

Ryanfire

You clearly believe there is some evidence to suggest that there is a creator with the attributes of God. I just wondered what that evidence might be?

There is no black and white; only gradations of possibility/probability. Absence of "absolute certainty" doesn't make it irrational for us assume we know some things.

Many years ago I went through a phase of agnosticism (justified by the lack of "absolute certainty") on my way to becoming a full blown atheist. Eventually I realised this argument was just plain daft.

Chris

Volker

Hello,

first, I have to apologize for my language, I'm not a native speaker of english.

There are two different types of atheists, some believe in the absence of god, others have an absence in the believe of god. I'm of the latter kind. I've moved from a believe in god as a roman catholic, to taoism, then to agnostic, then to atheism.

I think it is not coherent with our experience to believe in something without proof. There are a lot of things that might exist that we don't believe in. Say, for example, you all can't have a look at my desktop. If I tell you I have a blue ball on my desktop, all you know is that you can't know that I tell the truth. But there are a few things you can know for sure: It is impossible that there is a blue ball on my desktop, and at the same time there is no blue ball on my desktop. You can't even believe in this, no matter how hard you try. You can't believe in things that are contradictory.

So, if we don't define god or if we just assume that there he was the creator, that might be possible. But we associate a lot of things with this god: that he is almighty, all-knowing and all-loving, and that he is a personal being, for example (that is the christian god).

For this god, I know for sure that he does not exist. God can't be almighty - he can't create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift.

God can't be an all-knowing personal being. To quote Dan Barker (<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/august97/barker.html" target="_blank">The Freewill Argument</a>):

If you can't believe in contradictory things, you can't believe in the christian god. So, for most gods "known" to mankind, I'm an atheist. You can always define god so that I have to confess that I'm agnostic (e. g. a taoistic god), but if you do that I'm still satisfied with living as an atheist.

Most of the time believing in god is just wishfull thinking. The more "powerfull" our wishes are, the less likely they are to come true. The universe has us surprised in every instance - most of the time it was not like we thought it to be.

Theli

Antichris...

Nice put. There's a whole spectrum of greys.
Try to cross a highly trafficated road with the notion of agnocisism. "There is a possibility that the cars are not there".

Ryanfire

Where in my posts have I described this creator with attributes of a god? Our creator could be the universe, aliens, or god. I don't close my mind off to any possibility. As said above, we just assume, but never truly know. Read the quote below...

This is good logic and reasoning. This is why Agnosticism is the superior position (in my opinion).

There is no absolute certainty on the topic of existence. Why does matter exist? Why does the universe exist? "Just because" is a rather childish answer.

okay, so now you have absolute certainty of how the universe works now? Funny how you exist on a pale blue dot, in a galaxy (containing billions of stars) of billions amid the cosmos and have all the answers to existence.

To close your mind is rather daft.

Ryan