SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
His declaring that it's rational doesn't make it so.
He does say "God did it."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
He does say "God did it."
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I gave the ai GPT4 the link to this thread and told it to read through it and highlight the strongest arguments for and against the existence of god. Here's is an AI's summary of this thread, as I don't want to read through 4500 replies.
After going through the thread, here are the strongest arguments for and against the existence of God that I found:
Strongest Arguments For the Existence of God:
Cosmological Argument: The universe exists, so there must have been a cause or a reason – that is God.
Moral Argument: The existence of moral values and duties is best explained by a moral lawgiver (God).
Personal Experience: Many believers have personal experiences that they interpret as direct encounters or communications with God.
Existence of Consciousness: Some argue that the existence of consciousness suggests a creator.
Design Argument: The complexity and orderliness of the universe suggest a designer.
Strongest Arguments Against the Existence of God:
Problem of Evil: The existence of evil, pain, and suffering in the world is incompatible with an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God.
Non-Reliable Testimony: Many claims about God's existence are based on personal experiences and testimonies, which are often unreliable and not verifiable.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: There is no direct, empirical evidence of God that can be observed and tested.
Existence of Non-Believers: The existence of non-believers and different religions suggests that religious belief is more a product of one's environment rather than divine truth.
Science Explanation: Many phenomena previously attributed to God are now explained by science.
After going through the thread, here are the strongest arguments for and against the existence of God that I found:
Strongest Arguments For the Existence of God:
Cosmological Argument: The universe exists, so there must have been a cause or a reason – that is God.
Moral Argument: The existence of moral values and duties is best explained by a moral lawgiver (God).
Personal Experience: Many believers have personal experiences that they interpret as direct encounters or communications with God.
Existence of Consciousness: Some argue that the existence of consciousness suggests a creator.
Design Argument: The complexity and orderliness of the universe suggest a designer.
Strongest Arguments Against the Existence of God:
Problem of Evil: The existence of evil, pain, and suffering in the world is incompatible with an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God.
Non-Reliable Testimony: Many claims about God's existence are based on personal experiences and testimonies, which are often unreliable and not verifiable.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: There is no direct, empirical evidence of God that can be observed and tested.
Existence of Non-Believers: The existence of non-believers and different religions suggests that religious belief is more a product of one's environment rather than divine truth.
Science Explanation: Many phenomena previously attributed to God are now explained by science.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Here is a simple one, but with a long text. There is no single universal truth for all of the world.
In practice all of your examples are variants of cognitive relativism, but that says nothing about God as such. But rather that we can't know neither the positive nor the negative.
Terribly circular reasoning When science has an adequate explanation for our natural physical existence without God(s)
'Best explained' for any Theist argument is only a subjective argument from the perspective of the bias of belief.
Personal experiences are nonetheless subjective personal experiences nothing more.
Suggests? Consciousness is well explained by science without suggesting there is another cause,
Again suggests? is too subjective. All the physical evidence asserted for the complexity of life in design is the same as evidence for natural causes. Science more than adequately explains the complexity of life in the physical evidence for incremental changes due to natural evolution.
Nonetheless I believe in a universal 'Source' Some call God(s), but not because of the self-serving arguments above.
The problem remains that the existence of evil is awkwardly explained in terms of ancient tribal scripture, which is what traditional Theists argue for.
True,, my appeal to universalism (not UU) is based on the variable conflicting beliefs in God in ancient religions that fail from the existence of God(s) from the human perspective. In the concept of Universalism IF God exists God is undefinable from the human perspective, and the relationship of God to our physical existence reflects the Nature of things we see through science.
True
This does not negate the existence of God unless you assert that everyone knows the One True God, but will not admit they know. This is an awkward belief held by some Theists.
The natural explanation of our physical existence demonstrated through science does negate the existence of the God(s) of ancient tribal religions, but does not negate the existence of a universal 'Source' some call God(s) which Creates naturally and beyond the explanation of ancient religions.
I consider the fundamental foundation of the Philosophy of Universalism explains the possibility of the existence of God from a universal perspective where all the other arguments for a traditional belief in ancient tribal scriptures fail to provide a logical and reasonable argument for their God(s) I challenge ALL traditional Theists to present a traditional argument that provides more explanatory value than Universalism
Here is a simple one, but with a long text. There is no single universal truth for all of the world.
Correct there is no 'universal truth. 'There is a more universal perspective that considers the possibility that a universal 'Source'some call God(s) exists.
The bottom line is there is no objective verifiable argument that demonstrates the existence of God(s).
an anarchist
Your local loco.
This is news to me that consciousness is well explained by science.
We can't even properly define it, no?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How and why does the existence of consciousness suggest a creator?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Huh? There is no scientific explanation of consciousness. Indeed, scientists are having great difficulty even coming up with a good working definition of what consciousness is. It is a new area that is being explored, really in its infancy.
I'd say that the opposite was true. Consciousness cannot be the creation of any already conscious agent. If consciousness never had a start - never didn't exist - then it has no creator. And if the original substance was not conscious but became that, then consciousness evolved naturally from mindlessness.
The fine-tuning argument has a similar flaw in it. If the universe needs to be fine-tuned to support life, then no deity can be said to be the author of those limitations, but rather, their discoverer and implementor - just like man discovers the constraints imposed on him by nature and puts them to work for himself.
As far as I can see, the difficulty is that there are so many variants of consciousness and nobody seems to be able to agree on terminology. Even agreeing on test cases is problematic.
For example, is a bacterium conscious? It is certainly alive, but does that imply consciousness? How about a snail? Conscious? Not? How about octopi? plants (does it depend on type of plant? fern? seeded?)? Rocks? volcanoes?
I have seen people answer yes to pretty much every combination of these.
Yazata
Active Member
I don't agree that there's "no evidence for a god". If we define 'God' to be whatever the ultimate Source, Ground or Principle of reality is, then the reality of reality itself would be evidence of 'God', conceived of in that way.
I'm an agnostic, not a theist. I call myself an 'agnostic' because I lack knowledge of the Secret of the Universe. (What's more, I don't believe that any other human possesses the Secret of the Universe either.)
It's trivial to concoct a logical proof of the existence of God.
Premise 1. For all x, if x exists, then a sufficient reason for x's existence exists. (This is the Principle of Sufficient Reason.)
Premise 2. The universe exists. (Seemingly self-evident.)
Premise 3. God is the sufficient reason for the universe's existence. (Traditional in natural theology.)
Lemma 4. The universe has a sufficient reason for its existence (from 1 and 2)
Conclusion 5. God exists (from 3 and 4)
Obviously one might might try to falsify the premises 1, 2, or 3. (I'm inclined to question them myself) But that's not a logical matter, its more of a factual issue. The logic of this little proof seems to me to be impeccable.
Last edited:
references, please. You're arguing from a vague arguing from ignorance; without references.
Frontiers | What Neuroscientists Think, and Don’t Think, About Consciousness
The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it. Although th...
www.frontiersin.org
Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to consciousness; at the fine and gross scale, aspects of our conscious experience depend on specific patterns of neural activity – in some way, the connectivity of neurons computes the features of our experience. So how do we get from knowing that some specific configurations of cells produce consciousness to understanding why this would be the case? Behind the voltages and currents electrophysiologists measure is a staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic fields – these are the fundamental physics of neurons and glia in the brain. The brain is entirely made of electromagnetism (EM) phenomena from the level of the atoms up.
More to follow . . .
Scientists Have Developed a New Explanation for Consciousness
According to a new theory, choices are formed unconsciously and become conscious around half a second later. Consciousness is your awareness of yourself and your surroundings. This awareness is unique to you and subjective. A new theory of consciousness has been developed by a researcher at Bost
scitechdaily.com
According to a new theory, choices are formed unconsciously and become conscious around half a second later.
Consciousness is your awareness of yourself and your surroundings. This awareness is unique to you and subjective.A new theory of consciousness has been developed by a researcher at Boston University’s Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, describing why it evolved, what it is useful for, which disorders influence it, and why it is so difficult to diet and resist other urges.
“In a nutshell, our theory is that consciousness developed as a memory system that is used by our unconscious brain to help us flexibly and creatively imagine the future and plan accordingly,” explained corresponding author Andrew Budson, MD, professor of neurology. “What is completely new about this theory is that it suggests we don’t perceive the world, make decisions, or perform actions directly. Instead, we do all these things unconsciously and then—about half a second later—consciously remember doing them.”
In order to explain a number of phenomena that could not be readily explained by earlier theories of consciousness, Budson explained that he and his co-authors, psychologist Elizabeth Kensinger, Ph.D., from Boston College, and philosopher Kenneth Richman, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, developed this theory.
“We knew that conscious processes were simply too slow to be actively involved in music, sports, and other activities where split-second reflexes are required. But if consciousness is not involved in such processes, then a better explanation of what consciousness does was needed,” said Budson, who also is Chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology, Associate Chief of Staff for Education, and Director of the Center for Translational Cognitive Neuroscience at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System.
This theory, according to the researchers, is important because it clarifies how all of our choices and actions—which we mistakenly believe were made consciously—are actually made unconsciously. Therefore, since our conscious mind is not in charge of our actions, we may tell ourselves that we are just going to have one scoop of ice cream and then, the next thing we know, the container is empty.
“Even our thoughts are not generally under our conscious control. This lack of control is why we may have difficulty stopping a stream of thoughts running through our head as we’re trying to go to sleep, and also why mindfulness is hard,” adds Budson.
Budson and his coauthors consider a number of neurologic, psychiatric, and developmental disorders to be disorders of consciousness including Alzheimer’s
Alzheimer's disease is a disease that attacks the brain, causing a decline in mental ability that worsens over time. It is the most common form of dementia and accounts for 60 to 80 percent of dementia cases. There is no current cure for Alzheimer's disease, but there are medications that can help ease the symptoms.
" data-gt-translate-attributes="[{"attribute":"data-cmtooltip", "format":"html"}]" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none !important; color: rgb(0, 0, 0) !important;">Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, delirium, migraine, schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder, certain types of autism, and more.
Lastly, their paper provides a roadmap as to how clinicians, educators, and individuals can best improve behavior and gain knowledge, by using clinical and teaching methods that can be effective in shaping both the conscious mind and the unconscious brain. With further exploration, this work may allow patients to improve problem behaviors such as overeating, help us understand the ways in which brain structures support memory, and even provide insight into philosophical issues around free will and moral responsibility.
Reference: “Consciousness as a Memory System” by Andrew E. Budson, MD, Kenneth A. Richman, Ph.D., Elizabeth A. Kensinger, Ph.D., 3 October 2022, Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology.
Do your homework. Of course, not everything is known about consciousness, but yes science has a good basic explanation of physical cause of consciousness, and yes not all aspects of consciousness are known.
f physical processes in a brain create consciousness, what are they?
Victor de Schwanberg/Science Photo Library
If physics explains all the phenomena in the universe, and if consciousness is part of the universe, then it seems that physics can explain consciousness.
Of course, this assumes that consciousness isn’t separate from the material reality that physics explains – which runs counter to René Descartes’s dualist view of mind and matter. Some have no problem with that. They include Daniel Dennett at Tufts University in Massachusetts and Michael Graziano at Princeton University, who argue that our intuitive sense that consciousness needs an explanation that goes beyond objective descriptions of the physical world is misplaced. Consciousness is a mirage produced by sophisticated neural mechanisms in the brain, they contend, so we need no new physics to explain it. Rather, we need a better understanding of how the brain creates models: of the world, of a self in the world, and of a self subjectively experiencing the world.
I believe the assumption that there is a consciousness separate from material reality has no objective evidence to support it.
Last edited:
Here is a simple one, but with a long text. There is no single universal truth for all of the world.
In practice all of your examples are variants of cognitive relativism, but that says nothing about God as such. But rather that we can't know neither the positive nor the negative.
This reference is OK, but it muddies the waters as to what is Cognitive Realism in its variations and the objections to this philosophy. It does not make the difference clear between the knowledge of science, philosophical perspectives, and cultural and personal perspectives of what may be considered true or truths I could not help to notice the reference sidestepped any discussion of religions and religious beliefs.
Actually, my philosophy of Universalism may be considered a version of Cognitive Realism with important qualifications.
Universalism does not make judgments at its foundation concerning what is claimed to be true or truths of the subjective beliefs of religions, and other beliefs that make judgments as to the existence of God(s) and spiritual realms beyond the physical. The important issue of the beliefs of religion and other subjective beliefs is to put them in perspective of a more detached Universal consideration of their relationship to cultures. history, and their relationship to those who believe differently. Universalism does except the relatively evolving knowledge of science at its foundation based on objective facts and is willing to change when new information becomes available. Actually, this philosophy accepts determinism as the foundation of the nature of our physical existence, but not the rigid mechanical cause-and-effect determinism often considered by some as the nature of determinism.
Next, as per the subject of the thread.
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
More to follow . . .
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, objective facts. That is all good and well, but that is not all of the everyday world.
True not all, but as far as how to consider objective facts science would be the foundation for the nature of our physical world. The problem becomes as to how the fallible human perspective considers the subjective world of religions, and religious beliefs beyond the objective physical reflected in this thread.
How can we independently with reasonable detachment consider the claims of the diverse conflicting fallible human beliefs concerning God(s) and spiritual realms beyond the physical?
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It is not just religion that is subjective.
True, but this response is too brief and incomplete.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but the problem is that subjectivity is in practice variation. And for some of the debates we do, we can't even agree what subjectivity is.
So I am not going to waste energy on that anymore.