Are there any good arguments for God?

[Tiberius]

The above line of discussion was left dangling.... he he.

For the simple reason that I'm not sure what you mean by "did I give rise to my "i" sense."

Are you asking if I created my own consciousness and sense of self?

I tend to think that a person's consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

 

[Tiberius]

Let me ask, why exactly you require this proof? Driven by what motivation you are seeking proof for God and what will you achieve by rejecting all arguments?

Who said I require it? I'm just curious.

 

[Tiberius]

Agnostic and atheist are two different things, Sir.

Yes, I know, and I am both.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God. A theist is someone who has a belief in God. I do not believe that God exists, therefore I am an atheist.

An agnostic does not claim to have knowledge, a gnostic claims to know for sure. When it comes to my position, I am agnostic, because I do not claim to know for sure that there is no God.

So, as an agnostic atheist, I say, "I don't believe in God, but I could be wrong about the whole thing."

As a contrast, a gnostic theist would say, "I believe in God, and I know for a fact that I am right."

To answer the question, God reveals Himself to whom He pleases when He pleases.

How convenient.

 

[Tiberius]

I had said that the faith itself exists, not what we might have faith in. It isn't whether it really exists, but whether you, I, or someone else believes it exists is really what it's all about.

I agree that it is true that faith exists, I will not dispute this.

But I disagree that the existence of faith is what it's all about. God does not come into existence because people have faith.

 

[Tiberius]

If that is how you feel then that is your business, but your god Zeus obviously has no power (the meaning of "god" is having power,) whereas Love, the God of Abraham obviously to those who can see is the All-Powerful Force in this universe.

Zeus is the God of thunder and lightning. I have seen his handiwork many times. How can you say he has no power?

 

[Tiberius]

Putting you on ignore Mr./Mrs./Ms. Mestemia.

Goodbye.

While it's not for me to say what you can and can't do, I can't see what Mestemia did that warrants ignoring him.

 

[Tiberius]

Love (the God of Abraham) is real, Zeus is not. The end.

What justifies you redefining "love" to mean specifically your God?

 

[Tiberius]

I spent several decades with that same position. What finally changed it was not challenging others' beliefs, that's easy, but my own; recognizing my own beliefs as such- that there is no 'default' answer.

You need good evidence, so what do you consider the best argument for the spontaneous, naturalistic mechanism that produced the universe, everything you see around you?

I hope you aren't trying the old, "Prove God exists? WHy don't you prove that he doesn't!" technique.

 

[Tiberius]

Gonna be putting you on ignore Sir/Ma'am.

Hope you enjoy the site.

Noah

As JustWondering said, this seems to be a common response for you when someone asks you a difficult question.

 

[Tiberius]

I think that the God of Abraham reveals Himself when He pleases.

And why is it that he pleased to so often in Biblical times (despite no references to this outside the Bible) and yet rarely does so in modern times (and even then it's just a face on toast or something)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have limited time

We all do.

and I don't have the time to read through list of all your posts and summaries.

How about reading through just the post that you asked me to simplify here

Just for simplicity's sake, are you able to sum up the problems in a few sentences?

I was hoping you could provide a short explanation of a few sentences

I can and did. The problem is one of context. For example, if you are familiar with special relativity and tensor calculus, I can sum up general relativity much more concisely and easier. If you aren't familiar with e.g., the development of hypothesis testing and why this dichotomous attempt to render specific statistical levels of significance can only determine the probability of outcomes GIVEN that the desired conclusion is false, then I need a lot more than a few sentences to explain.

If you are going to tell me there is a flaw in physics

Actually I don't really hold that position. It's more of a matter of a problem with theoretical physics, and the idea that mainstream particle physics is an empirical science backed up solely by agreement with experiment rather than a highly theoretical construct that relies greatly on mathematical abstractions. This is true even of the standard model, although the reliance isn't that significant, but as 1) the standard model is universally acknowledged to be ad hoc and wrong, and 2) the replacements ARE fundamentally reliant on untested theories derived mathematically, the empirical support of the standard model doesn't count much when considering the empirical support of the whole of modern physics.

That said, as modern physics borrowed hypothesis testing from the social sciences, the logic remains the same: can the assumptions of normality (and so forth) of the probability functions of the phenomena in question determine whether or not the assumption that the groups characterized by the phenomena are identical combined with the fact that under said assumptions the probability that the groups are identical is less than some alpha level enables one to conclude that a factor not relevant to the assumptions or the testing is conclusive.

Hypothesis testing works like this:
1) Assume that the two groups (particles, patients, whatever) are identical. Develop and perform some experiment which "assumes" that they aren't (e.g., a placebo vs. real medicine experiment). Further assume the phenomena/phenomenon of interest that characterize the statistical nature (e.g., probability distributions) of the function(s) of said phenomena/phenomenon are given by particular models (e.g., normality assumptions).
2) Develop an experiment which allows you to test that, given two groups of particles/patients/etc. are identical, you can determine that (given the assumptions of probability distributions and so forth) the probability that the results you got are due to chance are less than some value (typically, <0.5 or smaller).

The issue is that at best, this procedure allows you only to, at best, determine that given you are wrong, your results are unlikely. It doesn't allow you to determine your assumptions are right, or (more importantly), given that you are testing hypotheses, that either one or another is more probable

and then back it up with a bunch of examples from psychiatry, I'm not going to be very convinced.

I gave you a description from particle physics. Again, the logic of hypothesis testing doesn't change.

 

[atanu]

For the simple reason that I'm not sure what you mean by "did I give rise to my "i" sense."
Are you asking if I created my own consciousness and sense of self?
I tend to think that a person's consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

So. Are you the owner of self sense and its motivations?

Who said I require it? I'm just curious.

No. It seems that the brain processes that give rise to consciousness also impel us to act in certain ways?

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

I am an agnostic atheist. That means that while I don't believe in God, I don't say that I know for a fact that he doesn't exist. I am perfectly willing to change my position, but I will need some good evidence.

So, what do you think is the most convincing argument for the existence of God? I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. If you post an argument that I've rejected, I'll try to explain why I have rejected it.

None.

 

[McBell]

What good is an argument that has no truth?

It makes them feel good.
It protects their beliefs,
Amoungst choir members it reinforces their beliefs.​

The list goes on and on

 

[Tiberius]

So. Are you the owner of self sense and its motivations?

The use of the word "own" suggests that these things are separate to the person with them. Can you demonstrate that they are separate? Because if they are not separate but a part of the person, then the quesation becomes meaningless.

 

[Tiberius]

It makes them feel good.
It protects their beliefs,
Amoungst choir members it reinforces their beliefs.​

The list goes on and on

A false belief makes them feel good? Maybe, but what happens when they are faced with the fact that it is false? Such people tend to either cling desperately to the false belief (which can make them dangerous and irrational), or they suffer embarrassment and dismay that they believed in something false. Either way, it's not good. Far better to go with the truth from the start.

It protects their beliefs? But we've already established that the belief is not true. What's the point of protecting it? And why should it be reinforced?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I hope you aren't trying the old, "Prove God exists? WHy don't you prove that he doesn't!" technique.

Exactly the opposite

 

[McBell]

A false belief makes them feel good? Maybe, but what happens when they are faced with the fact that it is false? Such people tend to either cling desperately to the false belief (which can make them dangerous and irrational), or they suffer embarrassment and dismay that they believed in something false. Either way, it's not good. Far better to go with the truth from the start.

It protects their beliefs? But we've already established that the belief is not true. What's the point of protecting it? And why should it be reinforced?

I have no idea.
Merely pointing out that which I have seen (and on some points suffered through) myself.

 

[atanu]

The use of the word "own" suggests that these things are separate to the person with them. Can you demonstrate that they are separate? Because if they are not separate but a part of the person, then the quesation becomes meaningless.

I think you are trying to avoid answering. What difference does it make whether the brain is your possession or brain is a part of your's? Who has the control of "I"?

Let me illustrate. How does it make any difference if a toy bunny is battery powered (when on dying up of battery the bunny stops) or electrically controlled (when on switching off electricity, the bunny stops). The bunny dances not of its own volition. So, I am asking whether you know of the genesis of your own "I"? Are you in control of the "I"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Test it for yourself.
The first thing necessary obviously is faith.

If a person needs to already be convinced of your conclusion before they'll believe what you're suggesting will lead to the conclusion, this is a sign that what you're proposing is seriously flawed.

"You'll find this compelling... if you already believe that it's true" isn't actually compelling.