Philosoft

Allow me.

(1) All things that are made of matter exist.
(2) Rocks are made of matter.
(3) Therefore, rocks exist.

Questions?

God is made of matter, too? Sounds like heresy to me.

yguy

1) What is matter?
2) How do you know rocks are made of matter?
3) How do you know that 3 follows from 1 and 2?

Hawkingfan

It is accepted that rocks will have the following qualities of science: mass (kilograms), length (meters), and temperature (Kelvin). In reality, things that have these qualities are known to exist.
False. God does not possess a single quality of science. No time (seconds), no mass (kilograms), no length (meters), no temperature (Kelvin), no electric charge (coulomb). He has no location, no speed, no past, no present, no future, no heat, no energy(joule) (no heat or energy=no thermodynamics), no magnetism, no sound, no light, no mechanics, no laws, no forces, no work (force over distance), no conservation. He is not a closed or open system.
Because it is more than sufficient to describe the existence of anything. Because nothing describes reality better than science, and nothing can exist outside of science or space-time. I thought god was everywhere? How can you say he "sits still"?

Hawkingfan

I suggest consulting a science textbook. But the basic definition in science is a general term applied to anything that has the property of occupying space and the attributes of gravity and inertia.

2) How do you know rocks are made of matter?

Because rocks have the properties of matter. Again, you'll want to consult a science textbook. It sounds like your high school physical science teacher did not do such a good job.


3) How do you know that 3 follows from 1 and 2?

What 3?

Philosoft

Something that has the property of "existence."

True by definition.

Because it's a valid deductive conclusion.

SanDiegoAtheist

Great. A solipsist

Here's my proof. Go outside and look for a rather large blot, colored grey (most likely), on the ground in front of you. Take shoes off. Kick that grey blot. Did it hurt? Ergo, experiential proof that a rock exists. Of course, I wouldn't need to kick the rock - merely seeing it, feeling it, and holding it in my hand to feel it's weight is enough for me to believe, based on what I consider to be the preponderance of the evidence, that the rock IS there, that it HAS mass, and that it WOULD hurt if I kicked it.

Like a lot of theists, you seem to be under the impression that atheists require ABSOLUTE proof - which, by it's nature, is very difficult to come by.

We don't. We require REASONABLE proof, by preponderance of evidence and experience. Many of us are trained as scientists, and know the tricks that the human psyche can play on us. It's FAR too easy for us humans to be fooled into believing what we'd LIKE to believe true - regardless of whether that is or is not the case (an excellent case in point would be the huge amounts of humanity who believed in a "flat-earth" literally THOUSANDS of years after the Greek and Egyptian scientists of their time proved it round. Another excellent example would be evolution.)

We see problems with the definitions of the God put forth in the Bible - among other things, we see difficulties in reconciling the moral standard this God claims as absolute, and this God's actions in large portions of the Bible. We see difficulties in reconciling this God's purported abilities and reality as WE (maybe not you) experience it. We see large discrepancies between the alleged Word of God, and other writings contemporary with that Bible. We see contradictions everywhere we look. So why SHOULD we believe in this God? I have been given no POSITIVE evidence for this God - except for the universally unhelpful "everything is evidence of God" - which, of course, is unhelpful precisely because every believer claims that as evidence for THEIR metaphysical point of view, no matter how much the believers metaphysical point of view may contradict ANOTHER believer's metaphysics. Moreover, of course, I fail to see any direct linkage between "everything" and "God". Maybe that linkage is there - but it's not obvious by any stretch of the imagination.

I can think of dozens of things off the top of my head that God could do to prove his/her/its existance to me - the vast majority of which don't even come CLOSE to the overt actions which the Bible CLAIMS to have happened in the past. An omniscient God certainly would KNOW what they are. An omnipotent God certainly would have the power to PRODUCE such evidence. An omnibenevolent God with the desire for ME to know HIM should have the will to use the above to overcome my skepticism and show that He DOES in fact exist. Certainly every believer that I've ever known has claimed that God has proved himself sufficiently to that person. Problem is, MANY believers I know are, IMO, insufficiently skeptical - many believe in hogwash such as UFO abductions, astrology, or any number of other claims that I think are ALSO far from proven. Most simply don't seem to have very high standards of proof for their God.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

yguy

By whom? All scientists? How do I know they aren't all wrong?

As a non-believer in rocks, they are not known to me. Why should I believe you?

Science, of course, is essentially that which is known; therefore you are correct to the degree that He is not known. The question, of course, is whether such ignorance is willful.

You are sure nothing can exist outside of science?

yguy

With all due respect, sir, I'm not here to satisfy anyone's requirements.

If by that you mean the idea that man evolved from single-celled organisms, that hasn't been proven, and it's a lie.

But that's for another forum, I guess.

Maybe you shouldn't - at least for the time being.

Why should He? If He did, He'd be dancing to your tune. For a man to demand evidence of the power of God is a little like a pimply-faced twerp demanding of General Patton that he show proof of his military exploits. He'd be lucky to get as much as a wry smile.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by yguy :

This much has been clear for several days. Yet I would hope you could indulge us with at least an attempt. It has been known to several philosophers of religion for years that there is no good reason to believe in God, and that arguments from evil show that God probably doesn't exist. Unfortunately, this knowledge has not propagated to the layperson, or even to all philosophers of religion.

The fact that you do not seem to be mounting a serious attempt to justify your position suggests to me (perhaps unjustifiedly) that you know of no way to make such an attempt. None of us is asking for proof that God exists. What we respectfully request is a sound deductive argument for theism, a strong enough evidential argument for theism to outweigh the force of the arguments from evil, or a practicality-based argument to show that theism is rationally inescapable for non-evidential reasons. I can provide such arguments to justify every belief I hold, and all my experience asserts that no theist is in possession of such arguments for her position.

I'll make your job easier with the introduction of an argument from evil, mostly from Drange.

(1) If God existed, then probably, there would be less intense widespread apparently gratuitous suffering and premature death than there is now.
(2) But there isn't less intense widespread apparently gratuitous suffering and premature death than there is now.
(3) Therefore, probably, God does not exist.

The argument is deductively valid and proves that theism is false, unless the theist can offer her own deductive or strong evidential argument for theism, or find reason to deny 1. Years of research have convinced me that the theist can offer no such thing.

No theory is ever proven, and no one making an assertion that she believes is lying.

Because it is in our best interests to know that God exists. If God were morally perfect, he would demonstrate his existence. He has not. Therefore, he does not exist. QED.

yguy

I could. Many have - and it's almost always a mistake, because you end up getting hopelessly entangled in an intellectual Gordian knot.

So what? It has been known to other philosophers that there is plenty of good reason to believe in God. Notable among these is Jesus of Nazareth.

They haven't shown me that yet.

Have I not said this already?

A deductive argument starts with the known and ends with the specific, does it not? What do we know that is fundamental enough to verify His existence?

If there is anything God is not, it's rationally inescapable. It's as easy as making an excuse.

No doubt, but there isn't a one that can't be logically deconstructed to the point it appears to be based on nothing.

A specious speculation with no basis in experience.

Reason to deny it? How about YOU providing reason to BELIEVE it?

That is true in the long term, but it does not follow ineluctably that it is in the short term, from the POV of the individual within his lifespan.