Evoken

Yeah, that is how I see it. to me it boils down to: "Existence exists therefore God exists"

Tha is why coming up with some evidence is so hard.

Integra96

This is the response I've gotten from some theists when the conversation turned to a similar question. Begging the question, for sure, but that's all they've got here.

Could we ask them if there's anything that could exist without a god? For example, a clump of molecular junk in some remote corner of the universe. If that can exist given the way physics is in the universe, then what prohibits the universe being the way it is now, life and all, given those same physical constraints that made a glob of junk possible?

Bah, I'm just rambling. Back to physiology... :banghead:

Hydra009

Interesting! I'd like to know more about this. If you could point me towards some links and/or books about this, that would make my day.

Jeremy_the _Atheist

This IS a good question. I'm going to post my own version of it on Christian Forums as soon as it's running again.

One reason that I'm an atheist is because our universe, as it is now, is exactly what I would expect to find if there was no god but a universe that could support life existed anyway.

BLD

It’s grounded in the idea that nature and the universe has an established order, of which man felt through “magic�? he could manipulate for his own ends. Religion is the acceptance of experience, that when he discovered his mistake, when he recognized that both the order of nature which he had assumed, and the control which he had believed himself to exercise over it were purely imaginary, he ceases to rely on his own intelligence and his own unaided efforts, and throws himself on the mercy of certain great invisible beings behind the veil of nature, to whom he now ascribes all those far-reaching powers which he once arrogated to himself.

Those still pressing forward to a deeper solution of the mysteries of the universe, come to reject the religious theory of nature as inadequate, and to revert in a measure to the older standpoint of “magic�? by postulating explicitly, what in magic had only been implicitly assumed… an inflexible regularity in the order of natural events, which, if carefully observed, enables us to foresee their course with certainty and to act accordingly.

But while science has this much in common with magic that both rest on a faith in "order" as the underlying principle of all things, everyone here will hardly need to be reminded that the order presupposed by magic differs widely from that which forms the basis of science. The difference flows naturally from the different modes in which the two orders have been reached. Whereas the order on which magic is based it is merely an extension, by false analogy, of the order in which ideas present themselves to our minds. The order laid down by science is derived from patient and exact observation of the phenomena themselves. That is the folly in religion to be based on existence as evidence, rather than existence OF evidence.

Yet the history of thought should warn us against concluding that because the scientific theory of the world is the best that has yet been formulated, it is necessarily complete and final. We must remember that at bottom the generalizations of science or, in common parlance, the laws of nature are merely hypotheses devised to explain that ever-shifting phantasmagoria of thought, which we dignify with the high-sounding names of the world and the universe. Magic, religion, and science are nothing but theories of thought; and as science has supplanted its predecessors, so it may hereafter be itself superseded by some more perfect hypothesis, perhaps by some totally different way of looking at the phenomena—of registering the shadows on the screen—of which we in this generation can form no idea.

Lemur

I'm willing to see an easier version of this question answered. Not "what would the world look like if God didn't exist", but rather "what would the world look like if the Christian God didn't exist". Pick aspects of the Christian God and describe what the world would look like if those aspects weren't present, then contrast that with what the world really looks like.

I'd like to see this one explored for a bit. What would it mean for the Church to err in matters of faith and morals? How could such an error be proven? As an example, tell me what evidence you would accept as disproof of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (or pick any doctrine of your choice).

lotus

IAsimisI, "Existence exists, therefore God exists" to me boils down a little further.
I know this has been done before me but I'll put in my own words and you have a think about this -
Say "Existence" is a set of all objects that exist.
Anything that exists is in set "Existence".
Anything not in "Existence" doesn't exist.
Sounds right?
We are assuming that "Existence exists" is true,
In order to make the reasoning "Existence exists, then X exists" true, you have to show that "X exists" is true. If "X exists" is false that makes the whole sentence false.
In order to show that "X exists" is true you have to show that it's a member of Existence.
To refrase this, what you have to say is along the lines of: "All objects that are members of Existence exist; God is a member of Existence; therefore God exists",
So the truth of statement "God exists" is what you have to be tackling, identify the properties that would show God is a member of Existence. If God has properties deviating from requirements to be a member of Existence set, then God is not in Existence and therefore does not exist. Think about these properties and see whether God can be in existence or non-existence.

Integra96

I've tried a similar approach, but the theist always retreats to something like "well, god exists outside of existence" (?) or "god isn't physical and isn't an object" or "god isn't contained by the universe", etc.

DMC

Wow I didn't know Mr Frazer was still alive. This last paragraph is an exerpt from "Farewell to Nemi".



LXIX. Farewell to Nemi

WE are at the end of our enquiry, but as often happens in the search after truth, if we have answered one question, we have raised many more; if we have followed one track home, we have had to pass by others that opened off it and led, or seemed to lead, to far other goals than the sacred grove at Nemi. Some of these paths we have followed a little way; others, if fortune should be kind, the writer and the reader may one day pursue together. For the present we have journeyed far enough together, and it is time to part. Yet before we do so, we may well ask ourselves whether there is not some more general conclusion, some lesson, if possible, of hope and encouragement, to be drawn from the melancholy record of human error and folly which has engaged our attention in this book. 1
If then we consider, on the one hand, the essential similarity of man’s chief wants everywhere and at all times, and on the other hand, the wide difference between the means he has adopted to satisfy them in different ages, we shall perhaps be disposed to conclude that the movement of the higher thought, so far as we can trace it, has on the whole been from magic through religion to science. In magic man depends on his own strength to meet the difficulties and dangers that beset him on every side. He believes in a certain established order of nature on which he can surely count, and which he can manipulate for his own ends. When he discovers his mistake, when he recognises sadly that both the order of nature which he had assumed and the control which he had believed himself to exercise over it were purely imaginary, he ceases to rely on his own intelligence and his own unaided efforts, and throws himself humbly on the mercy of certain great invisible beings behind the veil of nature, to whom he now ascribes all those far-reaching powers which he once arrogated to himself. Thus in the acuter minds magic is gradually superseded by religion, which explains the succession of natural phenomena as regulated by the will, the passion, or the caprice of spiritual beings like man in kind, though vastly superior to him in power. 2
But as time goes on this explanation in its turn proves to be unsatisfactory. For it assumes that the succession of natural events is not determined by immutable laws, but is to some extent variable and irregular, and this assumption is not borne out by closer observation. On the contrary, the more we scrutinise that succession the more we are struck by the rigid uniformity, the punctual precision with which, wherever we can follow them, the operations of nature are carried on. Every great advance in knowledge has extended the sphere of order and correspondingly restricted the sphere of apparent disorder in the world, till now we are ready to anticipate that even in regions where chance and confusion appear still to reign, a fuller knowledge would everywhere reduce the seeming chaos to cosmos. Thus the keener minds, still pressing forward to a deeper solution of the mysteries of the universe, come to reject the religious theory of nature as inadequate, and to revert in a measure to the older standpoint of magic by postulating explicitly, what in magic had only been implicitly assumed, to wit, an inflexible regularity in the order of natural events, which, if carefully observed, enables us to foresee their course with certainty and to act accordingly. In short, religion, regarded as an explanation of nature, is displaced by science. 3
But while science has this much in common with magic that both rest on a faith in order as the underlying principle of all things, readers of this work will hardly need to be reminded that the order presupposed by magic differs widely from that which forms the basis of science. The difference flows naturally from the different modes in which the two orders have been reached. For whereas the order on which magic reckons is merely an extension, by false analogy, of the order in which ideas present themselves to our minds, the order laid down by science is derived from patient and exact observation of the phenomena themselves. The abundance, the solidity, and the splendour of the results already achieved by science are well fitted to inspire us with a cheerful confidence in the soundness of its method. Here at last, after groping about in the dark for countless ages, man has hit upon a clue to the labyrinth, a golden key that opens many locks in the treasury of nature. It is probably not too much to say that the hope of progress—moral and intellectual as well as material—in the future is bound up with the fortunes of science, and that every obstacle placed in the way of scientific discovery is a wrong to humanity. 4
Yet the history of thought should warn us against concluding that because the scientific theory of the world is the best that has yet been formulated, it is necessarily complete and final. We must remember that at bottom the generalisations of science or, in common parlance, the laws of nature are merely hypotheses devised to explain that ever-shifting phantasmagoria of thought which we dignify with the high-sounding names of the world and the universe. In the last analysis magic, religion, and science are nothing but theories of thought; and as science has supplanted its predecessors, so it may hereafter be itself superseded by some more perfect hypothesis, perhaps by some totally different way of looking at the phenomena—of registering the shadows on the screen—of which we in this generation can form no idea. The advance of knowledge is an infinite progression towards a goal that for ever recedes. We need not murmur at the endless pursuit:


Fatti non foste a viver come bruti
Ma per seguir virtute e conoscenza.
5
Great things will come of that pursuit, though we may not enjoy them. Brighter stars will rise on some voyager of the future—some great Ulysses of the realms of thought—than shine on us. The dreams of magic may one day be the waking realities of science. But a dark shadow lies athwart the far end of this fair prospect. For however vast the increase of knowledge and of power which the future may have in store for man, he can scarcely hope to stay the sweep of those great forces which seem to be making silently but relentlessly for the destruction of all this starry universe in which our earth swims as a speck or mote. In the ages to come man may be able to predict, perhaps even to control, the wayward courses of the winds and clouds, but hardly will his puny hands have strength to speed afresh our slackening planet in its orbit or rekindle the dying fire of the sun. Yet the philosopher who trembles at the idea of such distant catastrophes may console himself by reflecting that these gloomy apprehensions, like the earth and the sun themselves, are only parts of that unsubstantial world which thought has conjured up out of the void, and that the phantoms which the subtle enchantress has evoked to-day she may ban to-morrow. They too, like so much that to common eyes seems solid, may melt into air, into thin air. 6
Without dipping so far into the future, we may illustrate the course which thought has hitherto run by likening it to a web woven of three different threads—the black thread of magic, the red thread of religion, and the white thread of science, if under science we may include those simple truths, drawn from observation of nature, of which men in all ages have possessed a store. Could we then survey the web of thought from the beginning, we should probably perceive it to be at first a chequer of black and white, a patchwork of true and false notions, hardly tinged as yet by the red thread of religion. But carry your eye farther along the fabric and you will remark that, while the black and white chequer still runs through it, there rests on the middle portion of the web, where religion has entered most deeply into its texture, a dark crimson stain, which shades off insensibly into a lighter tint as the white thread of science is woven more and more into the tissue. To a web thus chequered and stained, thus shot with threads of diverse hues, but gradually changing colour the farther it is unrolled, the state of modern thought, with all its divergent aims and conflicting tendencies, may be compared. Will the great movement which for centuries has been slowly altering the complexion of thought be continued in the near future? or will a reaction set in which may arrest progress and even undo much that has been done? To keep up our parable, what will be the colour of the web which the Fates are now weaving on the humming loom of time? will it be white or red? We cannot tell. A faint glimmering light illumines the backward portion of the web. Clouds and thick darkness hide the other end. 7
Our long voyage of discovery is over and our bark has drooped her weary sails in port at last. Once more we take the road to Nemi. It is evening, and as we climb the long slope of the Appian Way up to the Alban Hills, we look back and see the sky aflame with sunset, its golden glory resting like the aureole of a dying saint over Rome and touching with a crest of fire the dome of St. Peter’s. The sight once seen can never be forgotten, but we turn from it and pursue our way darkling along the mountain side, till we come to Nemi and look down on the lake in its deep hollow, now fast disappearing in the evening shadows. The place has changed but little since Diana received the homage of her worshippers in the sacred grove. The temple of the sylvan goddess, indeed, has vanished and the King of the Wood no longer stands sentinel over the Golden Bough. But Nemi’s woods are still green, and as the sunset fades above them in the west, there comes to us, borne on the swell of the wind, the sound of the church bells of Aricia ringing the Angelus. Ave Maria! Sweet and solemn they chime out from the distant town and die lingeringly away across the wide Campagnan marshes. Le roi est mort, vive le roi! Ave Maria!

END



Most people credit the author when posting something like this, else it's considered plagiarism.

Evoken

Well this is a better way to approach the question. I would say that if we were not made in the Image of God we would behave like animals without building everything we do and always seeking to improve our lives or even thinking so much about philosophy, religion, economy, art, etc. I think that this is tied to Original Sin which is a lack of Sanctifying Grace in ourselves and our fallen nature which creates our constant longing for that which we can't find in nature that satisfies us and which is what drives us in constant development and towards a solution to the problems that we face and those that we create ourselves.

Sure we can say that this is because we developed larger brains and all that but, I think that the fact that only humans are this way speaks in favor of the Christian God. And also the mere fact that we developed larger brains is really to me not enough to justify the contrast between ourselves and animals.

I know that there are many other things but that is just out of the top of my head.

Well I was referring to an inconsistency or contradiction in Catholic Theology taught by The Church. Like for example if the Immaculate Conception was infallibly declared and then later it is declared infallibly that there is no Immaculate Conception.