Does God exist?

[Autodidact]

Let's try this again another way. Rather than tell us what you already believe or don't believe, set that aside. Here's a question: Does God exist? Now, what is a good way to go about figuring out the answer to the question, without presupposing that God does or doesn't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, it depends. I'm trying to adopt tomato's methodology. If he assumes from a single data point that God exists, then he should also assume from a single data point that God does not. I'm trying to move away from special pleading for the purpose of the argument.

I actually think praying is a lousy way to figure out whether God exists, but tomato seems to put a lot of stock in it, so I'm trying to actually apply that methodology in a consistent way.

I don't really see how praying would be a way to figure out whether God exists as well, but assuming it did (or we had some other method to test for God), then taking one data point as evidence for God is entirely valid.

Each data point would be a piece of the answer to the question "how often does God answer prayer?" Every time God fails to answer a prayer, it indicates that the value is less than 100%. Everytime God does answer a prayer, it indicates that the value is greater than 0%. And any value greater than 0% implies that God exists.

It could also be consistent with a hypothesis, and tend to support it. I find all the data is consistent with the hypothesis, "There is no God." I would predict that God would not speak and reveal Himself to a praying person, and I would be right, which would tend to support that hypothesis.

But it also supports the hypothesis that God answers the prayers of believers, or that God only answers prayers made in Europe... or the hypothesis that God only answers prayers on statutory holidays (assuming you make your prayer on a normal workday)... or that God only answers prayers when you're riding a dolphin. All of these are equally supported by that single data point.

And statistically speaking, a sample size of one is so small that you can't calculate a variance. Not only could your conclusion be completely wrong, you don't even have enough data to make an intelligent estimate of how wrong you might be.

If God did answer my prayer, that would also not be dispositive, but could be a data point, a piece of evidence, that could favor the hypothesis of His existence.

No - it would actually prove it... as long as prayer was an actual source of knowledge. If God answers so much as one prayer, then this implies that God necessarily exists.

As an analogy, if you think that an animal is extinct, you only need to find one living example to reject this conclusion. When they caught that coelacanth in 1938, everyone immediately concluded that it wasn't extinct after all. They didn't say "well, that's one data point, but we can't be sure yet that it's not extinct - we've got to weigh it against all those times that fishermen didn't catch coelacanths."

 

[Autodidact]

You make a good point as usual, 9/10.

 

[Willamena]

Let's try this again another way. Rather than tell us what you already believe or don't believe, set that aside. Here's a question: Does God exist? Now, what is a good way to go about figuring out the answer to the question, without presupposing that God does or doesn't exist?

Setting aside everything you believe or don't believe is one method of discovering an image of "God". Does everything and nothing exist? If anything does, it does.

 

[PolyHedral]

But I can conceive of a universe that doesn't require God. Why should the actual universe be different?

 

[james2ko]

Let's try this again another way. Rather than tell us what you already believe or don't believe, set that aside. Here's a question: Does God exist? Now, what is a good way to go about figuring out the answer to the question, without presupposing that God does or doesn't exist?

I too, at one point, set out to prove or disprove the existence of this unseen God. Everyone seems to start the trek from the "beginning"--usually of the universe or matter-- to the current time. I started from the premise of my reality at the current time, which did not include either evolution or creation, and worked my way to the "beginning". I came out of my mother's womb. I was born into this world, grew up and became an adult. My current effect I hoped would lead me to the first cause--whatever that was.

First question I set out to answer was why--why was I born? Why is any animal born? Which led to other questions like--- Why are we so different, intellectually, than animals, when anatomically, we are equal? Because of this great chasm of creativity and brainpower, is this implicative of having a different purpose, if any at all? Oh yeah, and If this loving all powerful God, every one is raving about does exist, why can't He even stop little babies from dying of starvation in Africa?

As I began my search, I quickly discovered that science could not answer these fundamental questions. So I took, what I thought, was the next logical step. I looked for these answers in Theology. I started with Christianity because I grew up hearing about this pomp, chesty, arrogant God who says there is no other god greater than He and claimed to know it all. Since I had a lot of questions, I impartially began my search, which led to the most unanticipated conclusion of my existence.

 

[PolyHedral]

Oh yeah, and If this loving all powerful God, every one is raving about does exists, why can't He even stop little babies from dying of starvation in Africa?

Christianity has an answer to this?

 

[Wotan]

Christianity has an answer to this?

Yes ultimately they do. And it works. For them.

Another example that believing this stuff corrodes reasoning ability.

 

[Willamena]

But I can conceive of a universe that doesn't require God. Why should the actual universe be different?

But I can conceive of a god that doesn't require the label "universe" (unless you want to slap 3 Euclidean dimensions on him and call him home).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But I can conceive of a god that doesn't require the label "universe" (unless you want to slap 3 Euclidean dimensions on him and call him home).

So?

Any god wandering around without a universe isn't any god that we, in a universe, would ever interact with.

 

[Willamena]

So?

Any god wandering around without a universe isn't any god that we, in a universe, would ever interact with.

Well, I can conceive of many images of "God".

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes, which means that any of those might potentially exist. But I was objecting to the idea that the universe necessarily includes God.

 

[Willamena]

But I was objecting to the idea that the universe necessarily includes God.

Well, I'd object to that, too.

 

[Autodidact]

But I can conceive of a universe that doesn't require God. Why should the actual universe be different?

Why would your ability to conceive of something have any bearing on whether it is the case? You're sounding downright Aquinian, if that's a word.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because if I can conceive of it, it means that it is possible. I was objecting to Willamena seemingly saying that the universe can't exist without God.

Since that isn't what Willamena was actually saying,

Setting aside everything you believe or don't believe is one method of discovering an image of "God". Does everything and nothing exist? If anything does, it does.

What does this mean?

 

[Autodidact]

I too, at one point, set out to prove or disprove the existence of this unseen God.

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I set out to actually figure out what I think is the case.

Everyone seems to start the trek from the "beginning"--usually of the universe or matter-- to the current time.

No, I don't think so, at least, I never did.

I started from the premise of my reality at the current time, which did not include either evolution or creation, and worked my way to the "beginning".

Why start with you? Are you the center of the universe? If you accept science, then yes, your current reality includes a lot of evolution. Do you start your search with an assumption that science doesn't work? Because it certainly seems to.

I came out of my mother's womb. I was born into this world, grew up and became an adult. My current effect I hoped would lead me to the first cause--whatever that was.

This seems like an awfully tedious and lengthy approach. You'd have to include all of history, pre-history, archeology, evolution, geology, astronomy, cosmology...very slow approach. Maybe that's why people aren't there yet.

First question I set out to answer was why--why was I born?

If you do that, then you have to first consider what kind of "why" you're asking. Aristotle talks about 4 different kinds of Why's, and he was no dummy.

Why is any animal born?

There is a completely natural answer to this question, for at least 1 kind of why.

Which led to other questions like--- Why are we so different, intellectually, than animals, when anatomically, we are equal?

How did you get from one of your questions to the other? I don't see the connection at all. Actually, our differences from other mammals are more in degree than in kind. We're much more like many other organisms than we are different.

Because of this great chasm of creativity and brainpower, is this implicative of having a different purpose, if any at all?

If you're looking for answers about the natural world, then science has been shown to be the best way to find your answers.

Oh yeah, and If this loving all powerful God, every one is raving about does exist, why can't He even stop little babies from dying of starvation in Africa?

A bit out of left field here. I mean, we're trying to figure out if there is any such thing.

As I began my search, I quickly discovered that science could not answer these fundamental questions.

I don't believe you ever looked there, because science does answer most of the questions you posed above.

So I took, what I thought, was the next logical step. I looked for these answers in Theology.

You assumed your answer?

I started with Christianity because I grew up hearing about this pomp, chesty, arrogant God who says there is no other god greater than He and claimed to know it all.

Wow, how arbitrary can you get? You started with your childhood indoctrination? Why on earth would you do that? We're trying to get away from starting with our personal assumptions and brainwashing, and take a fresh look at the question. I mean, why should the arbitrary, rare (in the history of humanity) childhood brainwashing you happened to get be a logical starting point? This makes no sense to me.

Since I had a lot of questions, I impartially began my search, which led to the most unanticipated conclusion of my existence.

Oh, I'm on tenterhooks. Could it be by chance that you ended up in the religion you were raised in? How rare and original!!!! Not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because if I can conceive of it, it means that it is possible.

No, it doesn't. It just means that it's conceivable. I don't know about you, but I can conceive of many impossible things. What you or I can or cannot conceive has no bearing on what is or isn't possible. The universe isn't subject to our imaginations.


Hmm... modal logic's always seemed intuitively "wrong" to me, but I could never figure out why. I think I just did.

 

[Autodidact]

My family is the same religion I am. The community I was raised in was mostly non-religious (Washington State).

This is false, as any American knows. 85% of Americans are Christian.

Back to what confirms my atheism--bad theist arguments.They way theists casually make false statements like this is part of that. Obviously, you were raised in a predominantly Christian country. Whether you were in a town that is predominantly LDS we don't know, unless you're comfortable sharing what that town was. I'm guessing that you belonged to an LDS stake, regularly attended services there, and so forth? Is that all correct?

 

[PolyHedral]

No, it doesn't. It just means that it's conceivable. I don't know about you, but I can conceive of many impossible things. What you or I can or cannot conceive has no bearing on what is or isn't possible. The universe isn't subject to our imaginations.

Are they impossible because of physics getting in the way, or logically incoherent?

 

[Autodidact]

Oh. I missed this post. I've answered this exact question from you in a thread before. And um, yes, I consider myself lucky.

So what you're asking us to accept is that:
You're not Mormon today because you were raised Mormon. You came to an independent conclusion that LDS (one of the silliest belief systems on earth) is objectively true, and by chance coincidence you happened to be born into it.
Is that right?
Does that sound remotely plausible to you?
So exactly how many other Gods did you pray to?

Doesn't it seem much more likely that it feels true to you because your developing brain was formed with LDS theology?

Had you been raised Muslim in Peshawar, wouldn't you be equally convinced that you were lucky to be born into the one true religion, Islam?

How can we reduce the impact of our childhood indoctrination on our inquiry?