God refutation

I have no faith in the afterlife but believe in God 100%. I have terribly failed to be an atheist, my reason, perception & experience just cant allow.

A reminder that the early, biblical defintion of "faith" is "evidence of things not seen." (Basic science), Also, "the substance of things hoped for" (applied science.)

So, to get faith for the afterlife, you need to get evidence. Got example, consider the movie, Flatliner. But, as we know from science, there are less expensive experiments that can be done. Just up to you.

I have no faith in the afterlife but believe in God 100%. I have terribly failed to be an atheist, my reason, perception & experience just cant allow.

But what is your reason for ' I------------- believe in God 100%' ? Also exactly what do you mean by 'God' ? If you are doing philosophy you must define your terms when they are as vague as 'God' .

If an individual had to choose whether he continued existing or god continued existing. He’d choose himself every time. Why? Because the only reason why we believe in god is for our own personal gain, the glorious afterlife. No after life, no god. If we don’t get what we want, why should we believe in him.

lol i'm sorry this is not meant to be an insult at you or anything like that, so don't take it as such, but it was just funny to be conceptually. If I had to chose between the two I would chose God to exist because it is a logical consequence that if God exist I do too being a product of his ultimate good nature and all the rest so its kind of LOLish when you think about it. Forget about yourself and let God to all that existence stuff and poof, we don't have to worry about anything.

All jokes aside it kind of sidesteps the argument though don't you agree?

I want to make this exceptionally clear, and I think I need yet another version of it to do so. Lets say god did exist, and he promised everybody else an afterlife(if there good and all) but not you. But you have the choice to say whether or not he exists. But if he exists you don't when you do and he does not. Now, I'm sure we’d find the altruists come out and many of them would sacrifice their entire ETERNITY for the sake of others. But I'm confident most people would care too much about existing for REST OF TIME that they’d make god not exist and choose themselves over everyone.

I don't know about this one. I mean if God is supposed to be a all loving being i don't know if I could bring myself to kill God. Let's think this through for a moment shall we? Lets say the choice was between my existence or a close loved one of mine. I would probably sacrifice myself for a loved one and if God is an all loving being who (assuming I am a believer) have love for, why would I kill that person when I could let them exist in place of myself?

I find myself getting impatient with all this hypothesizing based on the psychological need to be secure. God is, for me, the primary example of an open-ended metaphor. What is its grounding? It's far easier for me to account for his popularity on the basis of psychological need than it is to posit absolute proof of his existence.

I find myself getting impatient with all this hypothesizing based on the psychological need to be secure. God is, for me, the primary example of an open-ended metaphor. What is its grounding? It's far easier for me to account for his popularity on the basis of psychological need than it is to posit absolute proof of his existence.

Perhaps, but the theist could argue that the very skepticism you adopt could itself be based on presuppositions that the theist simply does not concede. For example, you mentioned psychological needs as being sufficient to end the God talk, if I understood you correctly. Well the theist might say so what, of course there would be a psychological need that humans have which God accomplishes. You might counter by saying that the point is that psychological need is enough to explain God away as being merely a psychological crutch in a purely naturalistic universe. But this would be to beg the question in favor of a naturalistic metaphysics ultimately. Predominantly when someone says "naturalism" they usually mean it to be synonymous with "materialism," and when it is it has no choice but to make the belief in a higher power out to be a psychological crutch or some other form of adaptation evolved for survival.

I would therefore say that when you say it is "easier" for you to account for the belief based on the psychological makeup of human beings than find proof of Gods existence, it is actually not as easy as you think it is because your metaphysics is not so easily justified. Sure you can show that nature exists, but what does that mean beyond ones practical experience of it? One's practical experience does not tell you one way or the other if "naturalism" is true because it is compatible with both.

In the end it comes down to the base level philosophy you have that accounts or not, for theistic claims or claims of any sort as being compatible with that base level philosophy. Its about your starting point; everything else is just fluff after the fact.

My starting point is that nothing is capable of creating itself, nothing is author of itself.
Only if you created yourself could you have responsibility for yourself and ownership of yourself.
For good evolutionary reasons that's generally unacceptable.

My starting point is that nothing is capable of creating itself, nothing is author of itself.
Only if you created yourself could you have responsibility for yourself and ownership of yourself.
For good evolutionary reasons that's generally unacceptable.

I disagree about the responsibility part. Just because you did not create yourself does not mean you aren't responsible for yourself or that you cannot take ownership of yourself. The concept of autonomy in general and self consciousness in particular is what ensures we are both responsible for ourselves and have ownership over our selves. Thus we might be born into a world without any choice in the matter, but once we get here and our consciousness is developed we reach a point where it is only us and no one else who is responsible.

I find myself getting impatient with all this hypothesizing based on the psychological need to be secure. God is, for me, the primary example of an open-ended metaphor. What is its grounding? It's far easier for me to account for his popularity on the basis of psychological need than it is to posit absolute proof of his existence.

Perhaps, but the theist could argue that the very skepticism you adopt could itself be based on presuppositions that the theist simply does not concede. For example, you mentioned psychological needs as being sufficient to end the God talk, if I understood you correctly. Well the theist might say so what, of course there would be a psychological need that humans have which God accomplishes. You might counter by saying that the point is that psychological need is enough to explain God away as being merely a psychological crutch in a purely naturalistic universe. But this would be to beg the question in favor of a naturalistic metaphysics ultimately. Predominantly when someone says "naturalism" they usually mean it to be synonymous with "materialism," and when it is it has no choice but to make the belief in a higher power out to be a psychological crutch or some other form of adaptation evolved for survival.

I would therefore say that when you say it is "easier" for you to account for the belief based on the psychological makeup of human beings than find proof of Gods existence, it is actually not as easy as you think it is because your metaphysics is not so easily justified. Sure you can show that nature exists, but what does that mean beyond ones practical experience of it? One's practical experience does not tell you one way or the other if "naturalism" is true because it is compatible with both.

In the end it comes down to the base level philosophy you have that accounts or not, for theistic claims or claims of any sort as being compatible with that base level philosophy. Its about your starting point; everything else is just fluff after the fact.

I am responding to this post, to encourage any following along here to read it carefully.

For me personally, everything can be found using imagination, most of the world we live in has been imagined for us. My guess is that even that which we did not imagine was also imagined, it took more time to establish but through grey matter it has taken less to make real. All life that has this capacity to imagine no-matter how little must therefore be relevant, but more so that which needs to imagine in order to create what exists but is not yet real. This would make the imagination the greatest provider and is that not the idea of God, the imagination comes true and would the truth not be such a God? For one to argue good and evil, both these are intent with what is provided and not the provider. For one to believe in anything, one must first imagine. Even Knowledge would cease to exist without it.

"Man is not disturbed by things, but the view he takes of things."

For me personally, everything can be found using imagination, most of the world we live in has been imagined for us. My guess is that even that which we did not imagine was also imagined, it took more time to establish but through grey matter it has taken less to make real. All life that has this capacity to imagine no-matter how little must therefore be relevant, but more so that which needs to imagine in order to create what exists but is not yet real. This would make the imagination the greatest provider and is that not the idea of God, the imagination comes true and would the truth not be such a God? For one to argue good and evil, both these are intent with what is provided and not the provider. For one to believe in anything, one must first imagine. Even Knowledge would cease to exist without it.

"Man is not disturbed by things, but the view he takes of things."

I agree. The God we often suppose is there is quite beyond our mental limits, but wants to interact anyway. So, we have imagination and fiction wherein we stretch the capacity of our minds, building tempoary models, some of what we hope for. But, these we tear down and rebuild, over and over again, getting more involved with this God, "as we understand Him," to quote the AA line. As the imagination models grow, they are temporary guides, that produce richer and more abundant life, each more fruitful than the one it replaced. This progress assures us that the target, the "one true God," is indeed present. Thus, the truth in fiction, and in imagination, lures us on.

For me personally, everything can be found using imagination, most of the world we live in has been imagined for us. My guess is that even that which we did not imagine was also imagined, it took more time to establish but through grey matter it has taken less to make real. All life that has this capacity to imagine no-matter how little must therefore be relevant, but more so that which needs to imagine in order to create what exists but is not yet real. This would make the imagination the greatest provider and is that not the idea of God, the imagination comes true and would the truth not be such a God? For one to argue good and evil, both these are intent with what is provided and not the provider. For one to believe in anything, one must first imagine. Even Knowledge would cease to exist without it.

"Man is not disturbed by things, but the view he takes of things."

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but I think you are claiming a form of idealism. But the world can't be all imagined because it has "facticity" that we cannot change. It is therefore more coherent in my view to adopt a notion of subject and object being unified as part of the same phenomena. This does not reduce to materialism nor to idealism because neither mind nor matter is primary.

For me personally, everything can be found using imagination, most of the world we live in has been imagined for us. My guess is that even that which we did not imagine was also imagined, it took more time to establish but through grey matter it has taken less to make real. All life that has this capacity to imagine no-matter how little must therefore be relevant, but more so that which needs to imagine in order to create what exists but is not yet real. This would make the imagination the greatest provider and is that not the idea of God, the imagination comes true and would the truth not be such a God? For one to argue good and evil, both these are intent with what is provided and not the provider. For one to believe in anything, one must first imagine. Even Knowledge would cease to exist without it.

"Man is not disturbed by things, but the view he takes of things."

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, but I think you are claiming a form of idealism. But the world can't be all imagined because it has "facticity" that we cannot change. It is therefore more coherent in my view to adopt a notion of subject and object being unified as part of the same phenomena. This does not reduce to materialism nor to idealism because neither mind nor matter is primary.

"facticity"?...Dark matter is not real, yet science is telling us it exists, that it shaped and sculpted the universe, that everything that is real came from beyond the light, and became real in the light for it. Imagine that.

Exogen, How can you begin an argument by presupposing that presupositions exist? I was under the impression that the premise behind these explorations was an unbiased search for truth--a proposition that I accept, subject to evidence to the contrary.

I would agree that individuals are entitled to believe what they choose to believe; however, in an ideal world presuppositions should be based on provable evidence. I don't think it debatable that humans are possessed of the desire to survive. I don't think it debatable, either, that the awareness of ones mortality impels one to seek ways around it. I think (and there may be evidence for this in your argument) that belief in a deity provides a basis for belief in survival beyond the grave, ergo, an answer to the insecurity that comes from the knowledge of death.

I believe this kind of strategem (absent compelling evidence to the contrary) strikes at the roots of integrity and may well serve as the basis for a self-destrective kind of hypocrisy. If truth to ones self is the basis of personal integrity (and one can observe actual instances of this verity), it behooves us all to be careful of the wagon to which we hitch our star.

What you characterize as skepticism I characterize as an insistence on verifiable evidence. And I don't know whether to be offended or pleased by your imputation of naturalism--your definition of which I do not necessarily accept. The definition I prefer is "...a theory in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without ideallization or the avoidance of the ugly." To say that naturalism is compatible with both views is, if you'll pardon me for saying so, quite a stretch.

Thanks for an intelligent response.

Tangeable evidence refuting the existence of the biblical god is the harsh cruelty that our existence often is. This week alone I have dealt with:

1. A dead 20 month old baby; died overnight in the cot for no apparent reason. The child was loved and spoilt, an only child in an apparent good home to people who appear decent. I found myself talking to this dead baby as I examined her in the scene asking what could she possibly have done to deserve such a premature end.

2. A 22 year old single mother, driving along a road on the edge of town, hooked a wheel in the gravel at the edge, spun and hit a power pole. Subsequently died of her injuries leaving a young baby without a mum.

3. A dead 20 year old male student hanging dead in a tree in a town park at 9 a.m. this morning. Again, an apparent decent young man with intelligence, from an apparent good home and very much loved by his family.

4. A friend was diagnosed this week with having a large brain tuma and is under the knife today, fighting for his life. A good man who loves his family and community.

A bad week for our wee town I'll grant you but where was god in all this and why has this been allowed to unfold in this fashion? These people were "normal", whatever that is, but not criminals, good people and loved by their friends and families.

Where is god?

Not in the South Island of New Zealand this week anyway.

Exogen,

What you characterize as skepticism I characterize as an insistence on verifiable evidence. And I don't know whether to be offended or pleased by your imputation of naturalism--your definition of which I do not necessarily accept. The definition I prefer is "...a theory in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without ideallization or the avoidance of the ugly." To say that naturalism is compatible with both views is, if you'll pardon me for saying so, quite a stretch.

Thanks for an intelligent response.

I wasn't saying that naturalism is compatible with theism, but rather that the experience of the "natural" world is compatible with it. By being compatible with it, all such things like psychological crutches are also compatible with it. The distinction is between natural and naturalism.

What I am pointing out is that there is a tendency by those that claim to be "skeptics" to regard theistic claims as flawed because they, for example, don't square up with a "naturalistic" conception of things. But "naturalism" here is usually just a way of saying materialism. Again remember the above distinction between natural and naturalism. The natural world is something we all experience, but "natural" is not the same as "material." The debate from what I can see comes down to materialism vs theism even though it may hide itself under other names.

That is why I brought up the notion of presuppositions. I am in agreement with you that claims should be supported by evidence and logic, depending on what you mean by "evidence." If you mean by evidence, "empirical," I will have to disagree with you for the same reason logical positivism has problems. However if you mean having something supported rationally which may include empirical evidence or not, I am with you.

Thus I am cautious of those that dismiss theistic claims as being merely a psychological crutch, not because it couldn't be the case, but because I am aware of the underlying presuppositions (usually materialism) that are sometimes involved that can cause one to be dismissive of certain ideas at the onset or predispose someone towards a certain line of thought. I would ask those individuals to support their presuppositions. Now I have no idea if you are a materialist but even if you are or are not it is important to look at the underlying presuppositions which may account to why you swing this way or that way.

Finally no one exists in a philosophical vacuum, so while it is true that we must justify and support our claims rationally, there is no default position one can claim to be in when one is making a claim. One can claim ignorance on a matter and in that sense be a skeptic. In this sense I have always been a skeptic, but having a supported view on someone does not make one a skeptic any longer in that sense. Once one becomes aware of ones own biases or where one falls in a spectrum of ideas you can start to see that it comes down to what is the most fundamental discussion of the nature of reality, which would either be metaphysical if not primarily epistemological.