Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[osgart]

In other words, it is uncaused. I agree. In fact, I consider the universe to be such. No deities required.

So this universe in its current form is fleeting, it was not always this way and it won't always be this way. If space and time emerged then what was the default condition of existence? Is it even comprehensible? Perhaps it's an ever-changing eternal thing.

How does anything exist without a space and time condition?

 

[Polymath257]

So this universe in its current form is fleeting, it was not always this way and it won't always be this way. If space and time emerged then what was the default condition of existence? Is it even comprehensible? Perhaps it's an ever-changing eternal thing.

How does anything exist without a space and time condition?

What do you mean by the term 'condition'?

The universe 'just is'. it isn't dependent on anything else because there *is* nothing else. Time didn't 'emerge'. It just is.

One problem is that you are thinking of the universe as three dimensional space with things moving in it through time. A better version is that it a four dimensional spacetime that simply is. ALL causality happens within the universe. ALL 'emerging' is within the universe.

Simply put: the default condition is that existence exists.

 

[osgart]

What do you mean by the term 'condition'?

The universe 'just is'. it isn't dependent on anything else because there *is* nothing else. Time didn't 'emerge'. It just is.

One problem is that you are thinking of the universe as three dimensional space with things moving in it through time. A better version is that it a four dimensional spacetime that simply is. ALL causality happens within the universe. ALL 'emerging' is within the universe.

Simply put: the default condition is that existence exists.

The condition would be the form the universe takes. How it presents itself!

What becomes of inflation in your model?

Can we really know such things that this is all there is?

What about the possibility of a heat death to the universe?

 

[Ancient Soul]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

NO!

Atheists do NOT want to accept any amount of evidence or proof of God.

They delight in wallowing in their ignorance and insist that everyone else join them.

 

[chinu]

No restrictions. Think as long as you wish. I'll wait for an answer....

Why wait for an answer ? hope that I will satisfy you providing some answer ?

Well, that's what OP is all about, thank you.

 

[chinu]

No one did.

Suggesting this to polymath ? or responding to OP ?

 

[chinu]

What about people who are prepared to believe some things without evidence or proof, but not other things? Since the decision to believe must be made with neither evidence nor proof, what is the belief based on?

Though evidence/proofs are present all around us since our birth, the biggest evidence/proof is one's own existence.

Often people ask question -- If sun is hot, why space is cold ?

 

[chinu]

If the only proof offered is easily shot down then why should atheist believe in a god?

Yes. why ? why still hope ?

 

[chinu]

NO!

Atheists do NOT want to accept any amount of evidence or proof of God.

They delight in wallowing in their ignorance and insist that everyone else join them.

and on which song they dance on that time ?

 

[Ancient Soul]

and on which song they dance on that time ?

Nowhere Man - The Beatles

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

NO!

Atheists do NOT want to accept any amount of evidence or proof of God.

They delight in wallowing in their ignorance and insist that everyone else join them.

What we want is evidence of a god, not evidence that points to there being no god and then told we are the ignorant ones.

Evidence there is no god.
God waited 200,000 years before revealing himself to a group of goat herders.
If he wanted the world to follow him he would of picked a better group to reveal himself to, like a superpower of the time.
Genesis is proven to be wrong so the early writers were not getting messages from god
Jesus was an insignificant man in his time, he's not mentioned in any Roman writing of the time. Only that there are a few followers.
The bible was compiled as a political exercise by Constantine and the council.
Religion was very necessary for the development and cohesion of ancient groups.
Man invented religion, not just Christianity. That came later and before there is a lot of evidence of religions.
There is no link between many of these religions.
We are just a product of evolution like the rest of life on Earth.

 

[Tiberius]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

I'd honestly just like to see an argument for God/religion that DIDN'T resort to logical fallacies.

 

[PureX]

You are right. 'Subjective evidence' is indistinguishable from 'self-delusion' or 'unsupported opinion'. So I do deny the effectiveness of 'subjective evidence' as being supporting evidence for the existence of anything outside of one's own mind.

I would agree that 'absolute proof' is only available in mat and logic and not in the real world. But we can certainly ask for evidence that is at least as strong as the evidence for, say, dark matter. But subjective evidence simply cannot provide that level of confidence.

Except that God is not a material proposition. So you've defined the possibility of it out of existence, and you've declared any evidence for it invalid, in advance of any discussion, based your materialist bias. That may seem quite "scientific" to you, but in terms of philosophy, it's absurdly immature.

 

[PureX]

Not to argue, but what does subjective evidence look like? Is it a feeling, or certain kinds of understandings.

It is usually a personal experience of what one understood as being "God". But there are many variations.

A materialist would probably only accept that which is discernible by the senses. Then they might question the interpretation of the things sensed.

Materialism is philosophically absurd. But these materialists consider 'science' to be the only possible source of truth, so they don't even consider the viability of their position, philosophically.

For me I look more toward proofs on the logical basis of cause and effect. I have had deeply intense religious experiences, but I only consider those experiences evidence of my own soul.

They are evidence, nonetheless. And logically, even sensual experience is subjectively identified and determined, so there really is no logical difference between "objective" and "Subjective" experience. It's all subjective experience. Even those shared by others, as we are all still human and share the same subjective human limitations and conditions.

 

[chinu]

I'd honestly just like to see an argument for God/religion that DIDN'T resort to logical fallacies.

For example ?

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

It is usually a personal experience of what one understood as being "God". But there are many variations.

Worshipping a god can't be left to the individual if this god exists. It sets the rules and believers follow them.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

For example ?

I've given some reasons for not believing any god exists. So give us yours and we can debate them.

 

[Heyo]

The really big problem here is that people insist on confusing and wrongly conflating evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence, but there is no proof. Because what evidence there is, is subjective evidence, and "proof" is likewise a subjective determination. And on top of this, materialists (most atheists are materialists) will not even consider subjective evidence, evidence. So for them, there is "no evidence", even though there is actually plenty of subjective evidence. And there can be no "proof", because they have already determined that to be so.

So the debate just goes around and around in a pointless circle unless and until the debaters clarify and agree on what constitutes "evidence", and what determines potential "proof". Unfortunately this almost never happens.

The difference between proof and evidence is the context in which each is used. In a scientific (materialistic) setting no proof is required or even considered. So a material god needs evidence, scientific, i.e. repeatable, objective evidence.
If the god in questions is ideal in nature, science can't be used, so no evidence is required but proof.
Find the right tool for the job.

 

[chinu]

I've given some reasons for not believing any god exists. So give us yours and we can debate them.

Do you care to provide any example of any belief that resort logical fallacies ? So that I could continue.

 

[Heyo]

Do you care to provide any example of any belief that resort logical fallacies ? So that I could continue.

Pascal's Wager argues with a false dichotomy.