gcomeau

But I am. From your previous post:

"And why do I personally know at least five people who claim that they 'chose to believe' or 'willed themselves to believe in 'God'', even though they were not presented with what they would consider convincing evidence, but they simply got tired of trying to reason with religious spouses, friends, co-workers, etc.?"


If they have been presented with no convincing evidence then they are not convinced. If they are professing belief simply to avoid tedious confrontations with their acquaintances I hardly think we can conclude that they truly believe in the existence of God. They are simply ignoring the fact that they really haven't been convinced and are playing along to avoid conflict.

-Grant

rdalin

I believe that there is no god mainly because I see no evidence whatsoever indicating that such an entity exists. All this evidence that you claim god has provided is certainly ambiguous (at best). I wonder why that is.

edited for clarity

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: rdalin ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by rdalin:

"I believe that there is no god mainly because I see no evidence whatsoever indicating that such an entity exists. All this evidence that you claim god has provided is certainly ambiguous (at best). I wonder why that is."

You seem to have mistaken me for a theist.

But no matter. I assert that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack, unless you can show that if God existed, we'd probably know that He did. This is a tall order.

Devilnaut

Is the fact that every crow that we've ever seen is black evidence of the fact that all crows are black? I would say certainly.


Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. It is certainly not a full blown 100% proof, but it is evidence.

I also don't understand how you can believe that there is zero evidence against the existence of God (all we have is absence of evidence afterall) and still be a positive atheist.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Joseph Backs

You folk are fairly silly ambling on in this haze of doubt concerning whether or not God exists. Well, let's put it to rest:

OF COURSE He does (not).

Actually, my question is this: why do we have to have evidence that something Infinite and Ultimately Good exists? We can't have that empirical inductive evidence, unless we ourselves were Infinite.

Then again, maybe we don't need that proof. Why would we when we're talking so non-chalantly about Ultimate Good and Infinity, and yet doubting those things exist even though by some miracle we understand what they are.

Then again a kid who never saw the moon wouldn't know it to exist. What? Oh sorry, I got off topic there. Once again we know infinity and the ultimate good, cause we all know what we mean when we get down to it, without really (as we all have insisted) having any evidence for their existence.

How is that possible again? Abstracted imagination? Except we cannot imagine beyond what we know ... I learned that in Introductory Philosophy of Reality class.

Correct me when I start rambling like a maniac.

We know the Infinite exists because we know there is Infinity. If everything was finite, we could not imagine anything else beyond it. Right? No seriously though, I cannot imagine the moon without knowing it, and if I could imagine the moon then it would have to exist and I perceived it on some level at some time somewhere (Intro Phil again).

If everything was finite, we could not imagine anything else beyond it. How could we? Imagine something in the Universe (abstract or not) that goes beyond everything in the Universe that is finite?

Did you ever see that episode of Star Trek where Beverly Crusher gets caught in a Universe of her own making that is only 500 feet in diameter and steadily closing?

(That was a good one ... I digress)

But we can't prove it's the case - we just speculate on Infinity and God. Is that the argument?

What? How could we, if there wasn't such a thing?

David Hume said we can only juxtapose that which we know to create a so-called "new" thing that doesn't exist (and Dave is god!)

What are we juxtoposing to create the idea of the Ultimate Good if nothing we know to be so exists? Abstracted speculation.

Strange how deducation and pure thinking got thrown out the window when Locke came along, or maybe I'm the insane guy.

Maybe I'm a total moron, actually. I'm not sure. I think maybe I am.

I also believe it's impossible to understand something that by our own point is not evidenced anywhere in our Universe - and yet by pure reason we DO understand it.

But I have some issues I need to straighten out, forgive me for being abrupt. I just think God has to exist that's all. I don't care much to ruminate on the meaning of that.

Just that I wouldn't know 2 + 2 to be 4 if it wasn't so somewhere. I mean, even if I came up with it and couldn't prove it to be.

That's impossible I know, yes, but what if I didn't know it was true - one day I came up with it.

Then again I could come up with 2+2=9, and it wouldn't exist, that algorithm. You're right, I'm a moron.

Except I got the 9 out of a sequence and another algorithm that did exist. Oh damn.

So how could God prove to us that he exists? He already has.

Joseph

rdalin

I did mistake you for a theist, although I later read posts by you in other threads that made it clear you aren't. My apologies.

The problem with the 'lack of evidence' argument is that at some point I think it's legitimate to draw a conclusion from the fact that, in spite of thousands of years of searching, there's no evidence at all. My conclusion is conditional in that I'd have to reexamine it if evidence is ever presented, but I don't think it's unreasonable.

Accordingly to many theists, the god that they believe in has presented humanity with a great deal of evidence, the bible being only one example. I think it's legitimate to dismiss all such evidence.

OTOH, if you're talking about a god such as the one deists believe in - one which doesn't involve itself with the universe at all - then there's really not much to discuss. You can argue over whether a first cause is necessary, but these arguments can't be definitively settled. I take the position that the first cause argument is not valid, but I certainly can't prove it.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: rdalin ]</p>

Philosoft

Joseph,

Do you have a point, other than yet again to pompously explain that we somehow know God exists yet we are unable to conceive of him?

Kharakov

I am under the impression that Joseph Black is being humorous.

Devilnaut

Well let's see... I can conceive of a being that is infinitely evil and infinitely stupid. I guess if there wasn't one of these beings lying around somewhere, I wouldn't have even been able to conceive of him. He must exist!



Pure silliness. That the fact that we can dream up the concept of infinite (it's really not that much of a stretch!) means that an infinitely powerful being must actually physically exist is about as non-sequitur as it gets.

Philosoft

In that case he should try posting something funny.