Is there a god?

[everywhere116]

Why does it imply that?

I still think it matters from the individual's perspective. To say that "something is necessary" is lacking something crucial: "necessary to whom?" or "necessary for what."

It's too open-ended, so that's why I don't really understand the meaning of how you're using the phrase "god's existence is necessary."

oh i see.

well i think you'll agree that the fact our universe exists demands an explanation. one popular argument for the existence of god (clicky) says that a creator is necessary for the existence of our universe. this bypasses the problem of occam's razor (which says that there might or might not be a god, and it's more logical to believe there isn't) because it's impossible for our universe to exist without a god.

Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

[john9blue]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

[everywhere116]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

I disagree entirely. The burden of proof always, always rests on the party making the positive claim, in this case that's "God exists." The same applies with the claim that God is necessary for the universe to exist. First the theist must prove that God exists if he even wants to talk about God being necessary.

[Haggis_McMutton]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

You can also apply your same argument more directly to things other than the creation of the universe.

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

[john9blue]

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

once you have considered the question of whether god exists, you can no longer be a weak atheist because you have answered that question with some (non-zero) degree of certainty. the act of calling yourself an atheist is an active rejection of the god hypothesis. "weak atheism" is a cop-out term used by atheists to pretend that they don't have beliefs.

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

unicorns aren't necessary for the existence of our universe. why would they be?

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

gravity is a fundamental force which follows known physical laws. what part of that is not already explained? (other than the ultimate origin of gravity, but that's the same question as the origin of the universe)

[Haggis_McMutton]

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

once you have considered the question of whether god exists, you can no longer be a weak atheist because you have answered that question with some (non-zero) degree of certainty. the act of calling yourself an atheist is an active rejection of the god hypothesis. "weak atheism" is a cop-out term used by atheists to pretend that they don't have beliefs.

Definitional differences again, yay.

Strong atheism = "I KNOW god doesn't exist, like for sure, srsly"
Weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) = "I DON'T KNOW whether god exists or not, but based on currently available evidence I DON'T BELIEVE he exists"

knowledge != belief.

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

unicorns aren't necessary for the existence of our universe. why would they be?

i am not asserting that god unicorns are necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist a-unicornist is forced to show how god unicorns are NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists a-unicornists have a burden of proof much like theists unicornists do.

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

gravity is a fundamental force which follows known physical laws. what part of that is not already explained? (other than the ultimate origin of gravity, but that's the same question as the origin of the universe)

Higgs boson ?

But anyway this is not important, you can replace gravity for any phenomenon that is not perfectly understood yet.

[john9blue]

Definitional differences again, yay.

Strong atheism = "I KNOW god doesn't exist, like for sure, srsly"
Weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) = "I DON'T KNOW whether god exists or not, but based on currently available evidence I DON'T BELIEVE he exists"

knowledge != belief.

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.

i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

i am not asserting that god unicorns are necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist a-unicornist is forced to show how god unicorns are NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists a-unicornists have a burden of proof much like theists unicornists do.

our understanding of how the universe works has no need for unicorns. remove unicorns from the picture and our understanding of the universe is the exact same.

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

[PLAYER57832]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

I disagree entirely. The burden of proof always, always rests on the party making the positive claim, in this case that's "God exists." The same applies with the claim that God is necessary for the universe to exist. First the theist must prove that God exists if he even wants to talk about God being necessary.

In this case, claiming one to be positive and the other negative is erroneous. The Creation of the universe lies well outside any such constructs you wish to put.

Just think about it.. how can you even describe or imagine absolutely nothing. And what process could possibly generate something from absolutely nothing at all?

"God" is as likely as "random event".. neither are likely at all (to put it mildly!) AND neither really and truly solves the "beginning of the universe" question. If "God".. then how did God arise? If "random" then what could be random from absolutely nothing?

In fact, the only really "likely" possibility by human logic seems to be that time is concurrent somehow non-linear. Any other option really goes just so far outside any human understanding that making claims of ANY type is just amusing fiction (or frustrating fiction or illusion). (note.. NOT saying it is the only possibility, but the only one that comes close to truly addressing the real fundamental issue of how it ALL began, with or without God).

[PLAYER57832]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

You can also apply your same argument more directly to things other than the creation of the universe.

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

The burden is on both.. but neither can truly provide it. Not really, unless based on levels of assumption that simply cannot be truly and objectively proven. This is why it is in the realm of belief, not fact. And likely will remain so for the percievable future of mankind.

For one to claim "more evidence" before there is real firm proof is really arrogance, not scientific thinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

Definitional differences again, yay.

Strong atheism = "I KNOW god doesn't exist, like for sure, srsly"
Weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) = "I DON'T KNOW whether god exists or not, but based on currently available evidence I DON'T BELIEVE he exists"

knowledge != belief.

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.

i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

For evidence, one could start with claims that are falsifiable and not falsifiable. If someone's explanation can't be tested with the methods of science, then I'll take that as good enough evidence in order to dismiss unfalsifiable claims.

[PLAYER57832]

For evidence, one could start with claims that are falsifiable and not falsifiable. If someone's explanation can't be tested with the methods of science, then I'll take that as good enough evidence in order to dismiss unfalsifiable claims.

That applies to BOTH the theistic and atheistic positions, though... as well as agnosticism, though that is not truly a claim as posed in your post... just an acceptance of lack of proof.

That said, where proof ends, belief begins. Any great advance in science, in investigation of any type begins with belief. So, disdain for belief without fact is a pretty dangerous road to travel. It is the road for stagnation.

[john9blue]

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.

i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

For evidence, one could start with claims that are falsifiable and not falsifiable. If someone's explanation can't be tested with the methods of science, then I'll take that as good enough evidence in order to dismiss unfalsifiable claims.

fair enough, but earlier in this thread i was talking about how i consider the god question to be within the bounds of science (i.e. a falsifiable hypothesis)

[natty dread]

i consider the god question to be within the bounds of science (i.e. a falsifiable hypothesis)

Ok, how can it be falsified?

[BigBallinStalin]

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.

i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

For evidence, one could start with claims that are falsifiable and not falsifiable. If someone's explanation can't be tested with the methods of science, then I'll take that as good enough evidence in order to dismiss unfalsifiable claims.

fair enough, but earlier in this thread i was talking about how i consider the god question to be within the bounds of science (i.e. a falsifiable hypothesis)

So, for explaining the cause for the universe, we can pick (1) god did it, (2) god didn't do it cuz he doesn't exist, or (3) i dunno lol.

Which number are you, john?

and if someone runs with (2), does that make his system of belief as "religious" as a (1)'s system of belief?

[natty dread]

Just think about it.. how can you even describe or imagine absolutely nothing. And what process could possibly generate something from absolutely nothing at all?

Just because you can't imagine how something could be possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.

In fact, the only really "likely" possibility by human logic

What other types of logic are there?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Definitional differences again, yay.

Strong atheism = "I KNOW god doesn't exist, like for sure, srsly"
Weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) = "I DON'T KNOW whether god exists or not, but based on currently available evidence I DON'T BELIEVE he exists"

knowledge != belief.

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.

i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

I became an atheist because it became apparent to me that god is just a human attempt to ease our various fears and anxieties.

Why do I reject god today? Depends on the god:
abrahamic god - well, you probably know why
deistic god - untestable unfalsifiable hypothesis
gods of the gaps - shown time and again that the gaps don't need a god.
various (see "god is everything", zen buddhism and such) - undefined concept of god or definitions that are a misuse of the word god imo (i.e. god = material universe).

i am not asserting that god unicorns are necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist a-unicornist is forced to show how god unicorns are NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists a-unicornists have a burden of proof much like theists unicornists do.

our understanding of how the universe works has no need for unicorns. remove unicorns from the picture and our understanding of the universe is the exact same.

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

Right, we don't know how the universe came to be, therefore god.

Like I said, you can use the exact same reasoning to say the higgs boson = god's love and so on and so forth.

Actually this reasoning is interesting to me:
We don't know how this happened, therefore we create some being that caused it so now we do know how it happened.
Very similar to: We don't know how these crop circles appeared, therefore we create aliens that came last night and made them.

Looks like it's very difficult for humans to say: We don't know how this happens. Full stop.

[PLAYER57832]

Just think about it.. how can you even describe or imagine absolutely nothing. And what process could possibly generate something from absolutely nothing at all?

Just because you can't imagine how something could be possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Exactly. And just because you cannot see how something could be proven, because we lack the means to currently prove it wrong or correct, doesn't make it unfalsifiable.

Case in point -- Before we went to the moon, it was impossible to do so. This might well be the case with God. Claiming you know, absolutely, otherwise is really just arrogance of assuming the ideas you like are somehow "better", though no evidence actually exists.

In fact, the only really "likely" possibility by human logic

What other types of logic are there?[/quote]
Who knows? And, it really just gets irrelevant. The point is this is outside of our ability to assess.

[Woodruff]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

That doesn't even make basic sense - it is impossible to prove the negative.

[john9blue]

So, for explaining the cause for the universe, we can pick (1) god did it, (2) god didn't do it cuz he doesn't exist, or (3) i dunno lol.

Which number are you, john?

and if someone runs with (2), does that make his system of belief as "religious" as a (1)'s system of belief?

i'd say #3

what do you mean by "as religious as"? religion (as the word is commonly understood) has a lot of elements that atheism doesn't have, but they share faith/belief.

however, i would say that it probably takes more belief to think that "god exists, he sent his son to die for us, he punishes us for not following commandments, etc." rather than "god doesn't exist"

Ok, how can it be falsified?

well, for starters we could find out how to break the law of conservation of energy/mass (provided the universe began from nothing) or find out why time extends infinitely backwards and the universe hasn't ended yet (depending on which cosmological theory you subscribe to)

i am not asserting that god unicorns are necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist a-unicornist is forced to show how god unicorns are NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists a-unicornists have a burden of proof much like theists unicornists do.

our understanding of how the universe works has no need for unicorns. remove unicorns from the picture and our understanding of the universe is the exact same.

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

Right, we don't know how the universe came to be, therefore god.

Like I said, you can use the exact same reasoning to say the higgs boson = god's love and so on and so forth.

Actually this reasoning is interesting to me:
We don't know how this happened, therefore we create some being that caused it so now we do know how it happened.
Very similar to: We don't know how these crop circles appeared, therefore we create aliens that came last night and made them.

Looks like it's very difficult for humans to say: We don't know how this happens. Full stop.

no. that's not at all what i said. i'm showing how both theists and atheists have a burden of proof. i'm NOT SAYING that the atheists' lack of proof implies that god exists. to prove that god exists, theists need proof as well.

[Woodruff]

Definitional differences again, yay.

Strong atheism = "I KNOW god doesn't exist, like for sure, srsly"
Weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) = "I DON'T KNOW whether god exists or not, but based on currently available evidence I DON'T BELIEVE he exists"

knowledge != belief.

you don't have to "know" something in order for your views to require evidence.
i don't "know" that you aren't a hamster, but i am fairly sure that you aren't a hamster. and i have evidence: no hamster in recorded history has been able to type legible english words into a computer.

Actually, you don't even know that Haggis_McMutton exists outside of your own imagination.

[navi-boy]

has someone proved that god doesn't exist?

[Woodruff]

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

Your using some serious illogic here. The reason for the lack of theism is the lack of evidence for it. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I don't believe in a God. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

Duh. That's what science is for.

[Woodruff]

In this case, claiming one to be positive and the other negative is erroneous. The Creation of the universe lies well outside any such constructs you wish to put.

No. Either God exists (positively stated) or he does not exist (negatively stated). It is not at all outside of that construct.

[john9blue]

something tells me you haven't been keeping up with this thread, woody (and i can't blame you, it's long)

so when "weak atheists" say "i don't know whether god exists, but i don't think he does", their preference for the atheist side of the spectrum (as opposed to the theist side) requires evidence. you don't become an atheist for no reason. what is your reason? (the lack of a good reason by theism doesn't qualify as a reason for atheism)

Your using some serious illogic here. The reason for the lack of theism is the lack of evidence for it. Just as I don't believe in Santa Claus, I don't believe in a God. Do you believe in Santa Claus?

as far as we know, a creator/cause is necessary for anything in the universe.

as far as we know, santa isn't necessary for anything.

remove god from the picture and suddenly our universe is an uncaused cause and exists for no apparent reason. there are questions that arise from the rejection of the god hypothesis that atheists can't answer.

Duh. That's what science is for.

the god question is scientific, we discussed this already

[Woodruff]

Case in point -- Before we went to the moon, it was impossible to do so.

No, it wasn't. Unless you're going back to the 1400s or so, your statement is false. Hell, the Chinese were talking about doing exactly that long before then, in fact.