Does God Exist?

Ok, this is just what it boils down to, what we believe. In the absence of any serious possibility to really explain things, what remains is faith, and that often tends to be just wishful thinking. There really isn't a good reason to prefer one hypothesis over another.

Ok, this is just what it boils down to, what we believe. In the absence of any serious possibility to really explain things, what remains is faith, and that often tends to be just wishful thinking. There really isn't a good reason to prefer one hypothesis over another.

Logically we can make informed choices. I am reasonable sure the flying pink unicorn is not my creator.

Ok, for me God is just another name for the Big, Great, Pink Flying Unicorn. We know about God about as much as we know about the aforementioned Unicorn. If the Unicorn is only a unicorn because he chooses so but can at any given moment transform itself into anything else, how does it make it different from almighty God who can perform the same trick? Just assume the Great Pink Unicorn is also almighty (assuming the qualities of being pink and almighty are not somehow mutually exclusive - I really don't know much about these things). Or maybe you think God wouldn't stoop so low as to masquerade himself as a unicorn?

Ok, for me God is just another name for the Big, Great, Pink Flying Unicorn. We know about God about as much as we know about the aforementioned Unicorn. If the Unicorn is only a unicorn because he chooses so but can at any given moment transform itself into anything else, how does it make it different from almighty God who can perform the same trick? Just assume the Great Pink Unicorn is also almighty (assuming the qualities of being pink and almighty are not somehow mutually exclusive - I really don't know much about these things). Or maybe you think God wouldn't stoop so low as to masquerade himself as a unicorn?

God has no image that justifies the evidence. That does not stop me treating one with more respect than another. Would you honestly enter into the same argument if it was described as a pink unicorn or if it was described with some authority and conviction?

If God is the soul provider...."count your blessings and smile." It's all in the imagination, without which knowledge it'self would cease. "Oh me...oh my"....for those who want the truth...imagine it!..the imagination is the only thing that comes true, and is God not the truth?...."Happy go lucky me.".. "Man dose not live by bread alone"...but by everything that comes out of the imagination....I guess!

If one is to believe what science is trying very hard to tell us, the Simpsons pre dated us by around 14 billion years....

For Thomas Aquinas at least, the proposition "God Exists" is self consistent and tautologically true. This to me says less about the validation of what is arbitrarily ascribed to as being "god", and more about the self evident truth of the efficient cause of existence itself.

Please would Jellymeat enlarge upon this, or provide a reference? I am especially interested in how Aquinas dervied this from Aristotle, and how the RC Church can posit a transcendent God when Aqwuinas claims that Gosd is existence itself.

Alan McDougall wrote,


“Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29). That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.”


Several problems here: The problem is that your approach assumes that both faith and evidence may go together. While this may be logically possible, theologically it is never clear! Many believers who see themselves as fideists or presuppositionalists would certainly see the verses cited as good reasons to doubt a form of rationalistic-material evidence for the supernatural existence of god. Their view is that the passages that speak of god being seen in nature is best understood only through one being reborn and thus spiritually enlightened enough to SEE god in nature. Obviously, evidential apologetics and fideism have never been able to resolve this problem. The reason being is that BOTH teachings are equally justifiable on the grounds that one will obtain such and such apologetic position wholly dependent upon which texts one wishes to prioritize and interpret as the principle texts. So , for evidentialists, they will take a very modern understanding of these passages, i.e., they will interpret these passages as a modern would looking at creation rationally, and then reason that faith-revelation is something that can be added to this sort of natural revelation. However, presuppositionalists will likely say that the evidentialist is being anachronistic—interpreting these ancient texts the way a modern would and not as those who wrote the texts and originally read those texts; they would also state that all the passages cited are not either in word or context about demonstrating the existence of god but merely assume it while making some other theological point, and that the only way to SEE god is through the eyes of faith. In other words, for them, faith is different lenses that one puts on and then sees the world anew—they would debate that natural reasoning or that Paul’s statements in Romans 1-2 are meant to demonstrate the hopeless depravity of humankind and not that humanity can reason to god by looking at nature or even within itself. Either way, to say that the bible explicitly teaches a sort of scientific or rational approach to seeking god-is at best far from clear!!

Also, most people throughout history and in most cultures believed in multiple gods and supernatural-worldly forces. Monotheism is actually believed to be quite new to history and localized to a very small region of the world. It is doubtful that you would argue that polytheism is correct because of this statistical advantage. Obviously, there are lots of things that could explain why people are given to the supernatural-one cannot assume that there is but only ONE possibility!



Alan McDougall wrote,

“In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.”


Yeah, but most philosophers do not consider this argument very convincing. For example, suppose I have a lunch, “ a lunch than that which no greater can be conceived. It is argued that to exist is greater than not to exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable lunch must exist. If this conceptualized lunch did not actually exist, then this lunch would not be the greatest conceivable lunch, and that would contradict the very definition of this conceptualized lunch.” It is difficult sometimes to say what exactly is wrong with this argument, but one thing is clear that we can place many such concepts into ‘god’s’ place and gain a similar result. It isn’t clear, perhaps, because the use of the terms combined with the concept of 'greatest conceived' is too vague to be logically meaningful.


Another issue associated to the previous one is that the argument seems to contain a possible theological problem: god simply cannot be conceived!! Hence, placing god into a sort of ontological continuum of greater to lesser of possible existences assumes that existence-- and god’s existence-- is somehow conceptually measurable. Traditionally, this is playing with orthodoxy! All we can do is speak of god metaphorically and assume our theological conceptions describe a human way of understanding god without ever comparing any concept we have literally to god! If we had a natural clue as to what god is and we could somehow conceptually measure it, we would be like god in our own ability to grasp him/her/it. Since we cannot- we must caution ourselves on how we play with concepts regarding god! So, while the ontological argument isn’t considered unorthodox outright, many apologists and theologians rightly question its place as an appropriate way to go about establishing or arguing for god’s existence. Obviously, there are good reasons all around to question the veracity of any such argument contingent wholly on ontological conceptions. In this way, we see that for the argument to even work we must assume that these sort of existential-measurable terms are logically and thus intelligently applicable to god. However, this seems to suggest—strongly—that we have some idea—naturally—of what god is and how we may apply such concepts to him/her/it. Theologically, we cannot clearly do so!


Alan McDougall wrote,

“A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.”


Actually, this is an adapted argument from Aristotelian philosophy by Thomism. The argument made far greater sense back in a time when we had no alternative explanations for the vast order and design we seem to observe all around us. Obviously, we have on hand scientific explanations that can account for complex order without the need to appeal to a magical organizing intelligence. While one may do so, one cannot explain the organizer! Ultimately, in as far as explanations go, this supernatural explanation leads us back to the very place we began. If science cannot answer where we came from and how this all came about, one cannot say that the god-explanation does any better. To say that god somehow made everything from nothing, sustains it through his own effort, and created the physical laws that operate it, is saying nothing more than how a physicalist would argue for the basic constituents of the universe via hypotheses thus far not demonstrated. Positing god solves nothing empirically!!


Attempting to resolve these problems to appeals to the Cosmological argument only complicates the matter further because it too assumes the way causation MUST work in our universe categorically on empirical-inductive grounds, and that there’s no way that the universe itself is part and parcel of greater more complex material processes that are also at least conceivably infinite.


The teleological argument is more of an appeal to an intuition that favors our observations and us, much like the Cosmological argument, than being an argument based on reason or evidence or what have you. After all, such an argument asks us to ignore all of the innumerable imperfections we see in the universe, ourselves, and even the ancient religious texts. It merely selects those pieces of evidence that favors an already held set of assumptions and proofs that speak strongly of structure, design, and seeming purpose. Obviously, it must ignore all those things that fit no such scheme….and there’ s plenty! Moreover, design and complexity are not ironclad arguments revealing god. The universe and all of its intricacies are simply that complicated. We may posit god if we wish! However, we are neither compelled by logic or observation to do so!


Alan McDougall wrote,

“A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.”


None of this follows! For example, the cosmological argument is an empirical one: it begins by making an observation contingent upon how the universe seems to operate FROM OUR standpoint. This argument is therefore limited in what it can assume. For example, to argue the every effect must have a cause is an assumption that even if we credulously accepted cannot support the argument that the universe is an effect or that it is an effect of an unchanging-non-contingent being! The mere observation that action results in certain effects cannot ever hope to substantiate the notion that there must be an uncaused-cause. But even if we were to somehow even accept this-we still have no satisfying explanation. Saying that an undefinable, infinite, uncaused cause SOMEHOW and in some unknown way (certainly unknown to any human being) created all is as mysterious and inexplicable an explanation one could ever hope to posit. It only leads us back to more questions than we could even possibly answer even if we accept the ontological picture that the cosmological argument outlines for us.


There is an argument that would suggest that causes are reflected in their effects. Now, if the universe is finite, contingent—meaning that its parts are mutually interdependent on each other, and changing, then whatever created the universe would at least have to have some of these properties -if not all three. After all, our observations are that such finite, contingent, and changing things produce effects that contain these very properties. Therefore, it would indeed be a surprise to discover that the universe is made by something not just different than itself, but that its origin is OPPOISITE of itself! This leads to the question of how can something that is ontologically OTHER altogether be an intelligible source for all things finite, contingent, and changing. Again, this seems to move against the observational character upon which the cosmological argument is founded. If all we have are material finite, contingent, and changing causes and effects, then how can we posit its opposite when it comes to explaining it? We certainly can’t know about such a conclusion based on observation alone. It would appear, then, that the cosmological argument begins empirically enough and then abruptly ends with a sort of odd rationalistic conclusion that only leads further to more puzzling inquiries.


If one responds with, “Well, the conclusion is but a logical outcome of such a reasoning process,” then one has only said that we settle for one series of infinite, non-contingent, and changeless set for a possible infinite, contingent, and changing set. In basic, the latter is far more in line with the basic starting elements of the cosmological argument than the former! To say that the former is but the logical outcome of the observational series is to assume one knows ahead of time how the series goes and by what rules it all operates by. Quite evidently the cosmological argument cannot make any such assumption without leaving the argument altogether in order to recruit more premises from different types of arguments in hopes of maiking its case. In any event, the cosmological argument leaves us, much like the rest, with far more problems than it can ever hope to solve!



Alan McDougall wrote,

“A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?”


The easy to see problems with this argument are: (1) god isn’t the only explanation. Every species has inbuilt behavioral character that adds to successful functioning as a species. You do not obviously have to accept this argument; yet, it is a logical and quite intelligent alternative to explanations of moral behavior than a mystical being for which we cannot define or know in any uncontroversial way. Positing god only leads to questions of how one knows of god’s existence, which god, and how god determines right and wrong. If one argues that it is god’s intrinsic nature, then god is governed by forces beyond himself—begging for further clarity on what this superior nature is… or how it decides right and wrong for god. If god simply decides it, then god has no basis on which he makes moral decisions. This isn’t to just say that god’s decision making is arbitrary—rather it is to say that right and wrong have NO more firm and knowable basis than a moral solipsist would. In other words, whatever problems are offered up by some biological-physicalist explanation of morality, we know biology and the physical and we have some firm observations on which to make some intelligent hypotheses. The god explanation leaves us, once again, with more unresolvable queries than satisfying accounts of moral origins.

In a related way, why assume a common inexplicable god-being that implanted right and wrong in a common ancestor, than simply having a common psycho-social biology that evolved the constituents for moral behavior over long periods of time to the advantage of ancestral sexual and biological survival? If the issue is of the commonality of our moral impulse, then certainly biological explanations are capable of doing the explanatory work.


(2) Again, the argument can be turned on its head in a sense: What of human evil? In every culture and throughout all history human wrongdoing is a widespread issue that has led many philosophers to suppose that this tendency for self-centered absorption is the rule- and acts we consider to be ‘good’ are the exception (see Hobbes as an example). Could we assign such a thing to god as well? Why not say, given the abundance of suffering in the world, that god is apparently a malicious force who’s desires are to merely scar us for his sadistic desires? It is doubtful you would want to say this. The easiest and most common way to answer this objection is to leave the argument altogether and naively suggest a theological reason: man is fallen-since Adam etc. etc. Again, this abandons the argument that morality is best explained by god to a theological explanation that simply and authoritatively hand-gives one an answer without argument: Adam and Eve did it! Obviously, such a tactical move throws away any appeal to the C.S. Lewis-Norman Geisler like explanations of argument to the best explanation in favor of the argument from authority. Naturally, this move is actually even worse because authoritative arguments rely on (a) the legitimacy of the authority, which leads to begging the question- and (b) your highly interpretative reading of the texts, which leads to, again, more question begging issues. In any event, the skeptic need not be the least bit moved by the switch of tactic in the course of the argument.


Alan McDougall wrote,


“A fifth argument is that sometimes evil persons turn from their wicked ways and become good loving caring people”

Well, some people turn from their good loving and caring ways to religion or spirituality and become evil persons! In fact, it is an embarrassing and all too well known fact of the faithful that those who claim the name of faith have and ARE wreaking an untold amount of suffering on the world. Whatever evidence one can muster for one's side-obviously can be countered by all too convenient examples of the other!

Thanks all for the discussion,

Eric D.

Great post Eric D and thanks for going to the effort. Round and round it goes

Why thank you PaulNZ! All I can add is where it stops nobody knows!

I did also want to mention that I did read Alan's personal experience of god or what he believes to be such. All I will say to this is that these experiences are universal and interestingly culturally based! There are also biological explanations for these light-loving sorts of experiences. Given these two things-it is quite possible that what Alan was experiencing were certain brain-neuro-functions common to those who experience these events, and mentally--rather automatically-as the brain often does-- interpreted this experience in the context of Alan's religious culture. Given the fact that those who live elsewhere have culturally relevant experiences quite different from Alan's strongly suggests a psycho-biological explanation for such experiences. This is NOT what we would expect to find if Alan's possible theological views are correct: there are those saved and those damned! The pattern of hellish and heavenly experiences ought to be the only pattern we see. Yet, the very opposite is the case! People do not wish to believe that their brains interpret data for them. Yet, it does so in even everyday cases. The sky, for example, is NOT blue! But your brain's interpretive mechanism would never have you deny it!

Eric D.

Please would Jellymeat enlarge upon this, or provide a reference? I am especially interested in how Aquinas dervied this from Aristotle, and how the RC Church can posit a transcendent God when Aqwuinas claims that Gosd is existence itself.

In the Summa Theologica he laid out in great detail five reasons for the existence of god known as the quinque viae, or the "Five Ways." The fifth is that God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Thomas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

The dichotomy between transcendence and existence and the interrelation between them is the subject of the Father-Son-Holy spirit trinity from what I understand. Three Facets of the same object.

Just a few comments on this post:


Jellymeat wrote,

“In the Summa Theologica he laid out in great detail five reasons for the existence of god known as the quinque viae, or the "Five Ways." The fifth is that God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Thomas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."’


Indeed, these were Aquinas’s arguments. Yet, it also should be pointed out that these were contingent on a sort of Aristotelian acceptance of a thing’s properties existing as separate from that thing’s essence. Naturally, this is because Aristotle accepted Plato’s basic dichotomy of substance—or “form” or “essence” -and the thing’s properties. So, Betsy is a collection of properties that inhere on cowness—the substance. Betsy is a particular manifestation of the universal form “cow.” This division between contingent-changing properties and fixed universals was a means to explain how it is we “know” about such things as trees and cows, beauty, and justice without seeing any specific case or instance of such. This was also utilized to explain why there’s diversity in the world and how our minds make sense of it. For Plato, these Forms or Archetypes exist as separate from the material world. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw that forms MUST exist within nature. He helped explain why things come to be as they are. In other words, there had to be some vital-force in things that drove them to actualize their particular form. He thought that form works within particulars of kinds in order to bring about their own actual shape, smell or what have you. This explains actuality, potentiality, and why a thing can belong to a class—universal and yet manifest specific properties that make it an individual member of that class. For Aristotle, forms exist in particulars. One may wonder if this is really a huge difference from Plato—I assure you that this is an ongoing debate.


How does this apply to the discussion? In a couple of significant ways: (1) Aquinas—and Aristotle had to argue, based on the above reasoning, that god could have NO changing extended properties. The reason, given what I wrote above, ought to be obvious—if god’s properties were contingent and changing, then we may ask what beyond god fixes the causal role of these properties. Well, since Christianity cannot allow this nor a metaphysical explanation for all things causally, Aquinas had to accept god as a simple being—the ultimate universal or infinite essence-if you will (hence, the denial of god possessing any diversification--parts). Remember above, that “parts” imply properties. As a result, god could be analyzed into properties that could require a separate set of universals to explain them. Truly, it was dogma-not reason-for which Aquinas had to follow this line of thought for his conception of god. Naturally, we still do not have any idea of what a form is nor do we need such awkward metaphysics to explain organized complexity within specie taxonomies. Therefore, getting to the idea of god as a simple being must rely on a metaphysics that is at best questionable in light of today’s explanations and on which we cannot really explain—universals!


(2) “Subject and predicate” is an Aristotelian way (in his logic) to say ‘universals and particulars.’ For example, take the proposition “all swans are white.” In Aristotelian logic the “all” here means the whole category of swans possess the property of “whiteness.” We now think we know that all swans possess the property of white (the universal) even though we do not know all that “white” is. So, when Aquinas argued, “'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same,” he is making a kind of deductive categorical syllogism much like “all swans are white.” In other words, if god exists as pure essence upon which no finite, contingent, and changing properties control or depend, then it follows as a logical necessity that god exists as purely and independently as anything possibly could! The vital difference with the swan example is that the subject “swan” is not identical with the predicate “white.” Whereas “god” the subject is identified with the predicate “exists.” In god, existence IS god and god is pure existence—“pure” meaning without parts—or finite, contingent, and changing properties. Obviously, this is entirely built on the acceptance of this sort of rather fickle metaphysical picture of Aristotelian logic. If we take up the notion that we need not accept this dichotomy between universals and properties, that-instead- all things are their properties—or so it seems (as the nominalists have done), then Aquinas’s position simply collapses into an intricate defense of its basic ontological picture of the world. It is here that nominalism stakes out a viable and philosophically respectable claim to parsimony! In basic, they would argue that we need no universals in order to explain diversity and unity. If I can manage with more intelligible fewer entities for my explanations-why bother with multiplying needless and mysterious universals to accounts for the diversifying and unifying character of the furniture in our universe? Since we can, we may safely place aside Aquinas and Aristotle as interesting products of a bygone age!

Thanks all,

Eric D.

There are many scenarios we could speculate on. Part of very advanced computer game or just a very delusional dream where reality awaits us on waking from this life. A natural system of life and death with no indication of god. A pause in greater game where this life is just a insignificant interlude. If you can find evidence for any of them, they are relevant. But just as there is none for our accepted description of god there is no reason to believe we are part of an elaborate movie written by god. I do believe the future can be revealed but that does not indicate we have no part in writting that future.

Hi xris and others really great debate going on, my I add a little essay I wrote around the s78ubject some time ago?

A letter to an atheist by Alan McDougall

Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god. Life after death is unfortunately something neither I nor someone else can ever prove to

I, however, strongly believe we continue to exist in some form or other in dimensions of purpose, reason, beauty and that our consciousness continues to exist eternally after death. Otherwise our earthly fleeting life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature

Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?

This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy. I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?

Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?

The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.

A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way

When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch

I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like, thus controlled evolution by an intelligent designer!

Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence.

As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else in existence.

Look out the sparking water that quenches your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. the great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets. In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.

Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about. To me there is a wonderful creative behind all this glory if only we would look at it.

Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause. The universe will end but for that we will just have to wait

Even atheism scientists say our universe is precise, ordered with beautiful mathematical constants. One great astronomer said the universe was less like a great well oiled machine and more like a beautiful ongoing thought

I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless universe is bleak and cold

What do you people believe, No god or God


Alan McDougall 24/6/2008

Eric I understand your faith in observations and the evidence that we are given, but what about the opposite to the wonders and the invisibility of your god? Why has your god given us impossible tasks and terrible illnesses? Is it necessary to be so elusive?

As an agnostic I can see the possibilities when looking at the wonders, the amazing good fortune we appear to experience but science will never admit or deny god and it will never secure you one ounce of certainty.

Is your faith built on facts or is your faith independent of knowledge? I can understand the wonder you experience but not the certainty. Sorry Alan but evidence like faith can be very deceptive . I believe in the power of nature and the eternal spirit that flows through all life but intelligence that we can describe or even imaging is not expressed in any evidence I have found.

@ Alan & Xris


Alan wrote,

“Is there a reason for living that goes beyond that of our earthly mortal life on earth? I say there is, how you can be so sure that there beyond life. Why not just try to consider that there just might be a god. Life after death is unfortunately something neither I nor someone else can ever prove to”


The question is not even a fair one to ask. It isn’t that atheists have not considered whether there is life beyond death or the existence of a god etc. In fact, those who in our society call themselves atheists are more likely to have actually carefully considered that question than many believers who merely accept what they’ve been handed. Rather, it is that we have asked—or as myself who actually lived as a believer—and through much thought and consideration have come to see that neither the personal testimonies or so-called evidence for such existence has any teeth in the claims themselves!

To show the utter disingenuousness of your question Alan- consider it for yourself! Can you doubt the existence of god in order to better explore the reason upon which you supposedly believe? Consider life after death! Why would you only consider YOUR version of possible postmortem events and no other contrary versions through the same process of suspending your beliefs as you ask of the atheists? Have you genuinely listened to the heart-filled account of Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others to determine their authenticity? Have you considered the position that ‘no exists’ requires no explanation and something else may well account for people’s religious attitudes? Why ask the atheist such a question when it is likely you have not yet explored all of these, and many others, options? Why ought we to consider something that many of us clearly have when most believers haven’t bothered with any of the details of their faith? What if we considered the existence of god?! Nonsense! We have and that’s why we’re atheists! Have you considered the possibility that you might be wrong about Zeus, Thor, or the creator hawk of the mountain? I doubt it!

If life after death has no answer-ONLY belief, then why are we or the agnostics not rightly entitled to doubt religious claims? Why, if there’s no convincing reason—personal or otherwise—are we asked to consider something for which no one can ever know—even by your own admission?? This is exactly backwards! Why ask us to consider something with such impenetrability at all? Why not consider Zeus Alan? It is you who is making the claim to know god! You show us why we should consider it at all!


Alan wrote,

“I, however, strongly believe we continue to exist in some form or other in dimensions of purpose, reason, beauty and that our consciousness continues to exist eternally after death. Otherwise our earthly fleeting life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature”


So what? Honestly and respectfully, who gives a philosophical care what you think? It’s why we ought to care Alan and you know it! Your beliefs state if we don’t care we’re going to hell. Let’s not mince words. Why should we consider your claims as anything more or less attractive intellectually or personally than you’ve considered from other people of differing faith? We don’t believe because people like you tell us we’d better or else without bothering to satisfy our personal and intellectual longings and inquiries. When we seek out your reasons-we find nothing compelling. The atheist isn’t a mystery Alan-the believer’s beliefs are!

Moreover, look at the obvious careless bias of your own beliefs! If your version of god doesn’t exist, then life is nothing but a cruel joke of nature? Not even on atheist’s worst hangover day would that very notion follow! There’s nothing special about eternity or being controlled by an omniscient cosmic dictator that would make life worth living more! In my view, quite the opposite! You own nothing!! You do not define your own destiny, right your own wrongs, invent or create beauty because its already given to you to appreciate, your life HAS NO purpose because either you follow god’s lone cosmic plan or you simply follow the sin-ridden path that your depraved nature will inevitably lead you towards, and you do not even fall in love on your own because that’s a good that god alone authors and HANDS you!! What kind of gross vision of the world is this? One worth dispensing with if at all possible! Fortunately, there are plenty of fine intellectual and moral reasons to do so!


Alan wrote,

“Have you ever thought that to be an absolute atheist takes more faith and is more difficult to rationalize than one like me who believes there is a creator? How could nothing evolve from nothing and become everything?”


Absurd! How all got here is not entirely known. We admit that! Why jump to a supernatural order to explicate something that is by theological definition its opposite? To admit one doesn’t know requires NO faith-obviously! Moreover, how does a supernatural inconceivable being to us create all of this out of nothing? Keep in mind that your beliefs argue that god created FROM ZILCH! At least with our approach we have physical explanations, possibilities, and hypotheses we may explore as to the question of ‘how.’ You have none of that available to you! All you have is a pure leap of faith that somehow god did it! Now, even if our position had nothing better to offer (and it does along these explanatory lines), why would our position be less or more believable than yours? You still have a force that brought all of this into being out of nothing. At best, this question is as well asked of your position as it is to ours! Your position can no more answer this question than the supposed faith ridden atheist trusting in science for all his answers! Every believer believes that the initial creation was a miracle, which by definition, defies naturalistic explanations of any kind! Positing a creator does nothing to answer the question of ‘how’ all this came to be—especially, and, again, when you posit that it did so FROM NOTHNG! Again, check your bias.


Alan wrote,

“This logic demand that dark nothing morphed into everything, nothing created energy time matter and finally life out of inanimate energy. I see this as a ridiculous assumption; I am left to believe that all existence including mysterious life evolved without reason or purpose. Do you really believe this as a fact?”


This isn’t our position. Ever hear of a strawman argument? Your making one right now, which reveals to me and others that you’ve spent NO time considering the opposition you’re criticizing—and you want US to consider your position? Absurd! We say that we don’t know how it came about ultimately! We just see no special reason placing an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and a supposedly omnibenevolent being at the helm of creation that you yourself admit no one can objectively realize on this side of postmortem experience. It is obvious that positing god no more explains HOW creation came about or how it is sustained than if I posited a whole other magical force doing the work. Logically, the only thing that positing god does within the creation story here is act as a theological guess at who the culprit FOR having created things might be—how he or it did so is as much a mystery as anything can be! You should really know this!


Alan wrote,

“Let us consider, what life is, how could the unimaginable almost infinitely complex molecule DNA of life came into existence so quickly in relation to cosmological time. Life existed on the primordial earth just a moment after its creation, again in cosmological time?”


Is this really your understanding of DNA and natural selection? Cosmological time? What? Look, what we know is that the basic constituents of life are found floating around in the universe—we gain this information from meteors that have since crashed into the earth. If we have basic replicating molecules—knowing that each time they replicate certain numbers of mutations are had (some harmful-some neutral-some actually beneficial, depending on the environment at the time)—existing over long stretches of time-and given the various selective pressures on the genetic material-so to speak-over BILLIONS of years, then complexity built up in the DNA is to be expected! In fact, the very makeup of DNA reflects just this process: lots of useless genes, beneficial gene sequences, and harmful sequences that can emerge in certain members of the population. If what you’re asking is if evolution is possible over billions of years, then the answer is an obvious “yes.” If you posit god created the complexity in the DNA, then you have far more questions than any scientists would have when explaining how natural selection can account for such complexity! For example, why the harmful or “junk” portions of the DNA if all is well designed? Please, do not refer to the convenient fall of man explanation. Your argument is design in creation here-if when we find that much of the genetic code is pointless, you can’t then try to explain that away by positing a chaotic moral force of sin and then expect us to respect the “design” aspect of your argument. In any case, a casual reading of works done on this matter would clear up your seemingly gross misconceptions. May I recommend NOT reading JUST creationists and I.D. lit on the matter?


Alan wrote,

“The universe is unimaginable complex and sustains itself by exact precise fundamental constants, if this harmony differed in the infinitesimal fraction we would simply not exist; indeed the earth itself would not exist.”


This isn’t exactly accurate. But even if it were-it wouldn’t explain the vast dead and pointless bodies of entire floating galaxies out there. One which is estimated to slam into ours by the way. It wouldn’t explain why-if we are the center of god’s creation, we are flung to the outer skirts of our own galaxy to be numbered as merely one planet among billions to possible trillions in the universe! It doesn’t explain why vast portions of our own globe contain NO discernible design and is in fact hostile to human life! What you’re doing here is the famous confirmation bias argument: You select those pieces of evidence that you think bolster your position and ignore the counterexamples. You are also making an argument from incredulity: it basically says that since I do not understand how all of this works or how scientific cosmology explains it all, I simply reject it! In other words, you’re basing your rejection of a physicalist explanation of the universe NOT because the merits of the argument are somehow flawed-but because you simply don’t understand it or how it could be so! Well, there are many who do.


Alan wrote,

“A billion trillion googolplex monkeys typing for eternity would not produce even one of Shakespeare sonnets. Another analogy, if we took a billion airplanes, filled them with water, concrete and bricks and dumped the whole continuously on the earth for a billion years, would it magically and randomly form the beautiful Taj Mahal or the Sydney Opera house? But you insist I must accept the beautiful universe a of unimaginable precision came into existence this illogical way”


Ah…reading some Josh McDowell I see LOL! Obviously ole Josh is a poorly educated man. It is obvious that these examples wouldn’t produce these effects because they are wholly random events producing nothing. However, this isn’t the position of the science or the physicalist position! Physical laws operate in NON-RANDOM ways-that’s why we term them LAWS! There’s a NATURAL order to them that may well produce mountains to pointless-lifeless moons! Evolution by natural selection is NOT random either—hence the term “selection.” Mutational sequences are random-but which sets of mutations get passed along and survive is what the environment DOES! The environment determines which groups of gene-combinations will survive and which ones perish with the changing environment. Nothing random about this process either!!

I do not say you have to accept anything. Just don’t ask me to consider what is obviously ill-informed questions with the added agenda to actually TELL me to believe something that is nothing but the magical source of it all! You’re the one saying believe the one magical deity that I happen to believe in or else! Let’s keep in mind who’s asking who to consider what here—re-read your top paragraphs!


Alan wrote,

“When life needs to evolve due to changing circumstances, does it tell itself to alter its own DNA for the new conditions or could there be a watch maker resetting the watch I see god adjusting the DNA overlooking his own experiment if you like, thus controlled evolution by an intelligent designer!”


Oh-Alan-really-lol? This is not the position of evolutionary biology or any well-informed physicalist position. All I can say is re-read what I wrote previously. May I suggest that you study the position from the other side prior to engaging in conversation displaying a view of the position clearly outlined by those who neither accept it nor understand it --at all!


Alan wrote,

“Our breathtaking beautiful is expanding and anything that expands must have a beginning. Can you prove there is no god of course you can’t, can I of course I can’t, but at least I can offer circumstantial evidence... Atheism is a faith belief system just like anything that requires belief without evidence. As an amateur astronomer leaves me with an unshakable belief that am awesome intellect created the universe and everything else in existence.”


How can atheism be a belief system when it is commonly defined BY us who so call ourselves such-a cognitive state of absence of belief? Atheism is a philosophical attitude towards monotheism-nothing more! It requires no metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, or even political commitments. I am buddhistic-for example-while other atheist would find my ontological views abhorrent. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were both atheists and both couldn’t have been more different personally, intellectually, and philosophically. Atheism is the result of a common everyday state of mind simply applied to the theistic view of god: not only do we have no reason for belief but we leave the question open. Agnosticism is inherent in atheism as it is in theism! The key difference is that to the atheist the unknowability of god’s nature-being etc. are sufficient reason to withhold belief-wherein the believer is wholly unaffected by such unknowns. Obviously something like god (or god somehow better defined) could exist. We simply see no reason to assent to such belief. That isn’t a denial of anything anymore than it requires a faith to make happen!

You also have this attitude about a great many things: you’re an atheist in respect to Zeus; the Muslim version of god; all of the African gods; Native American gods; that I am twenty feet tall, or that Obama will win the next election. This common cognitive state is one wherein an individual has reason to doubt all of this. You may NOT necessarily disbelieve these ideas or propositions outright. Yet, you do not assent to any of these statements either. Atheism is but this attitude philosophically articulated in regards to theism-nothing else! Being an atheist says nothing about you-it only states what you are not! Such a thing is hardly a definition of anything. Nor does such an attitude imply anything about what any one atheist believes about other issues.


Alan wrote,

“Look out the sparking water that quenches your thirst, the fruit that feeds you, and invigorated your body. There is beauty everywhere and you must search for real ugliness. Go outside on a moonless night and reflect on the wonder of the cosmos that sparkles above you. the great snow capped mountains and streams, the blue sky and the rise of the sun at dawn and its golden glow as it sets. In the early morning go and listen to the sounds of nature, birds chirping like tiny electrons in the mind of god. The wind that you breathe the precious nourishment supplied by mother earth.”


Look out at the water that infects tens of thousands of children daily-only to kill them later. Look at the vast farmlands and corporate ranches that overwhelmingly send odors of feces and death into the air. Look at your own body and notice that the stench of your bio-plumbing is right where your pleasure producing genitalia are—some design! Go out one night and look at the moon and notice—if you can put your own religious romanticism aside for the moment—the huge pock-marks that scar its surface! Notice the falling star or the distant glimmer of a dying star if you have the techno-wherewithal to visually capture it! Notice that near the base of those snowcapped mountains cries out an animal being crushed to death by the blood thirsty jaws of some nocturnal predator ! Notice the sun if you can—if it doesn’t blind you. Look closely at its dead spots that mark its surface- and the belching force that it occasionally spews out causing radiation damage to everything in its streaming path of deadly particles! Listen to birds chirping! They do not chirp for your pleasure. They are chirping to warn of nearby predators; to locate needed food for their starving young; to shoo away would-be competitors. Look at the birds pecking on the ground ripping the worm out of its whole or biting in half the insect that was merely feeding on the leaf just beside it. Notice the wind that rips your home in half or leveled a city just a few years ago! Notice the literal billions that are starving and thirsting because there’s NOT enough food and clean fresh water supply to go round!

You see Alan-you are simply seeing what you wish and nothing more. Only a myopic view of the world would ask us to see god in the face of such overwhelming cruelty! To find ugliness, unfortunately, requires almost no effort at all!


Alan wrote,

“Then explain to me how chance can bring this all about.”


It didn’t and no-one is saying that it did—once again!


Alan wroe,

“Like all things the universe has a beginning and this demands a creator, for nothing can exist with a prime cause. The universe will end but for that we will just have to wait”


No! You have a biased view of causation-which I’ve already covered elsewhere! If the universe had a beginning-all that implies is exactly that! It doesn’t require a very large magically infinite being to have created it out of nothing! There’s NO form of logic that would even remotely suggest that one had to come to this highly refined and particular conclusion.


Alan wrote,

“I believe in God, what you believe is your right but to me a godless universe is bleak and cold.”

I would think that a universe created by a so-called loving being that allowed for the Hitlers, starving masses, wars, and pain-filled death would cause far more concern for you than a universe that does reveal its own godless character all about!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xris,

Xris wrote,

“Eric I understand your faith in observations and the evidence that we are given, but what about the opposite to the wonders and the invisibility of your god? Why has your god given us impossible tasks and terrible illnesses? Is it necessary to be so elusive? As an agnostic I can see the possibilities when looking at the wonders, the amazing good fortune we appear to experience but science will never admit or deny god and it will never secure you one ounce of certainty.”


I have no idea what your talking about! Faith in the evidence etc.? Huh? What evidence and observation reveal Xris is an obvious counter to theistic claims even IF they turn out to somehow be true. I’m not required to provide explanations for why you and others think that complexity or the wonder of it all or anything of highly subjective character counts against a physicalist belief system. All I need do is when the theist makes his claim is have sufficient reason to doubt it. The so-called science plus observation—along with critical analysis—provides me such epistemic grounds for doubt. Is it possible that god exists—I’ve already stated my answers to that. That’s, once again, not at issue! What is are the claims that the theist makes and why people like myself have right to doubt them.

Xris, wonder away-speculate all day long if you’d like. I’m not looking for certainty on this issue either way. You should know my position on certainty by now—after all, I’m a Humean skeptic! My point is simple: I have good grounds to doubt the theists absolutist claims to knowing they have truth!


Xris wrote,

“Is your faith built on facts or is your faith independent of knowledge? I can understand the wonder you experience but not the certainty. Sorry Alan but evidence like faith can be very deceptive . I believe in the power of nature and the eternal spirit that flows through all life but intelligence that we can describe or even imaging is not expressed in any evidence I have found.”


I know this is addressed to Alan but it is relevant to the above point I've been making. In some wild sense you’re making my argument for me. Obviously the evidence can be deceptive either way! All the more reason to be skeptical! I’m not making any absolutist claims on the epistemic certitude of science and I’m not even certain how you could have ascertained that view given what I’ve written thus far. Here nor there, we have lots of reason to doubt the theist claims as we do when the hardened physicalist who asserts to know what the nature of the universe is!


Eric D.