Posted by: dogblogger
Date: March 18, 2015 12:16PM

For what we know now, it simply doesn't matter if there is a god.

There is no clear evidence of involvement by anything divine or supernatural.

There is no clear evidence of an afterlife. And this is actually the biggie. If there is no afterlife, the existence of god doesn't matter to us as humans now. The great benefits claimed for God are to come in an afterlife, an afterlife that is doubtful at best.

If you want to claim God exists, get busy proving the afterlife. Because if there is no afterlife, God's claimed blessings are meaningless.


On a different tact, labeling the unknown as God is not constructive. This creates the God of the Gaps concept and you're left with an ever dwindling concept that means less and less until s/he disappears. What kind of God is that?

Or God as a mental crutch? Why is self-deceit a fruitful path for living your life when we can and do know better?

These arguments are weak and in the end, self-defeating.

Maybe I've just created strawmen of your arguments, let me know.

Have you ever read "Theology and Sanity" by Frank Sheed? You may like it :)

I don't read "Christian Books" since I'm not Christian.
I just wish more 'Christians' acted more like Christ.

God can be neither black nor white.

He's an infinity of shades of gray kinda guy.

Which Hawking says isn't a black hole, but a gray hole, since there's just as much energy and information emitted from it as there is going into it.
What makes you so certain God is a He?
Seems awfully patriarchal.

You can't be sure. But to assume something exists for which there's no good evidence is stupid. The arguments for this haven't changed for centuries and they don't hold up. The only way to believe in any god or gods is by faith. Faith is nothing but just talking yourself into it.

And your point is? Dogblogger is pretty clear and you've just quoted his entire post without responding to it. What he's stating goes against what you usually state, or are you reposting it because you agree with what he states?

For reference, his original post can be found at:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1539845,1540115#msg-1540115



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 05:41PM by Finally Free!.

My point is that this is essentially a dead argument. Debates about it are all similar. They do nothing but display skills in the art of debate itself. God's apologists all end up with only one reason why they believe. Faith, usually through "the self-authenticating confirmation of the Holy Spirit" or some other similar ideation, which is really nothing but a way of describing self-delusion.

My question was for the OP. You were clear.

Best evidence of afterlife/after concsiousness is consciousness itself and near death experiences. Try this youtube by Peter Fenniwick. He is a well known neuropsychologist in England.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcogQBGK-Zo

This is the best evidence I have found regarding an afterlife/after consciousness. God - not so sure.

He also wrote an interesting book called Death and Dying



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 05:58PM by perky.

I'm as certain there's no God as any (grown) theist is convinced there's no Santa Claus.

If pressed, you'll admit that there's a small chance he might exist, somewhere, but it's not something you worry about.

For what we know now, it simply doesn't matter if there is a god.

(If so, then why do we put "In God We Trust" on the top of every dollar bill and coin the USA? Why do we say, "One Nation Under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance?)

There is no clear evidence of involvement by anything divine or supernatural.

(The god I subscribe to is the god of Einstein/Taoism, which isn't Supernatural, just mysterious, like the vast majority of the universe, like NASA scientists say.)

There is no clear evidence of an afterlife. And this is actually the biggie. If there is no afterlife, the existence of god doesn't matter to us as humans now. The great benefits claimed for God are to come in an afterlife, an afterlife that is doubtful at best.

(Again, that's a mystery, just like the vast majority of the universe.)

If you want to claim God exists, get busy proving the afterlife. Because if there is no afterlife, God's claimed blessings are meaningless.

(Like I said, I'm not talking about a personal God of Judeo Christianity)

On a different tact, labeling the unknown as God is not constructive. This creates the God of the Gaps concept and you're left with an ever dwindling concept that means less and less until s/he disappears. What kind of God is that?

(The Chinese call it "Tao". The Greco/Roman Stoics called it "Logos". The Native Americans called it "Great Spirit". "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Einstein)

Or God as a mental crutch? Why is self-deceit a fruitful path for living your life when we can and do know better?

(It's just gives me an appreciation for the mystery of life. Like Einstein said, "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.” Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies)

These arguments are weak and in the end, self-defeating.

Maybe I've just created strawmen of your arguments, let me know.

(Not at all. I appreciate your insights and questions.)

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For what we know now, it simply doesn't matter if
> there is a god.
>
> (If so, then why do we put "In God We Trust" on
> the top of every dollar bill and coin the USA? Why
> do we say, "One Nation Under God" in our Pledge of
> Allegiance?)

Because a large group of delusional, ignorant control freaks in the 1950's decided to show the "godless commies" in the USSR that we ignored our own constitution, and bribed congresspeople to do those things.
Surely you can't think that because such people acted on their delusions and fears, that means there IS a "god?"

By the way, "we" don't say "one nation under god." You might. I don't.

Our Nation's motto has appeared on our money since 1864 but your anti American extremism is duly noted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Our Nation's motto has appeared on our money since
> 1864 but your anti American extremism is duly
> noted.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust

On coins only. It wasn't added to bills until the "red scare" of the 1950's. Or the "under god" to the pledge.
And it's not "anti-American extremism" to want us to follow our own constitution and not be hypocrites. Your ad-hominem is duly noted.

Philosophy Assignment: Imagine up a god that makes sense.

Science Assignment: Take that god and make it necessary.




The problem with being certain is that you have either have to ignore everything or disprove everything. One is super easy and many of us did it for decades, the other requires Elohim style supernatural knowledge. I am happy to know more than I did, and still know that I don't know much at all.

Philosophy Assignment: Imagine up a god that makes sense.

I think the Stoic god, logos, makes a lot of sense.
It's the same as the Taoist god, Tao, which is the same as Einstein and Sagan's God, "The immutable laws that govern nature."

Science Assignment: Take that god and make it necessary.

Laws are necessary.
We just don't have the math to figure them out, so we just throw in a 95% fudge factor and call it 'dark matter/energy' which is a pretty big swag.

I much prefer Tao or Logos to "Dark Matter/Energy", "Black Holes" or "The Great Attractor"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 09:34PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I much prefer Tao or Logos to "Dark
> Matter/Energy", "Black Holes" or "The Great
> Attractor"

Why? Those names are descriptive, accurate, and make no assumptions.
Your preference is not descriptive, not accurate, and makes assumptions.

Words have meaning. While most people do not think of a physical being when you say the word God, they will tend to think of something that is at least two of the following:
-- anthropomorphic
-- corporeal
-- omniscient

In other words, 'god' is a singular entity. To state that god is the combined mystery of the universe is redefine the word in such a way that it departs from its near-universal and colloquial meaning. Moreover, this makes disambiguation hard; in this definition, I can state that I believe in "god" and that I believe in the power of Newtonian physics; both are expressions of my belief in the rigidity of the rules that stipulate physical behavior, though they will be interpreted as two separate statements (one faith-based, one fact-based) by anybody I make the statement to.

In short, to synonymize "God" with physics is to abuse the definitions.

We may have opinions as to whether there is or there is not a God, but none of that has an bearing on the reality.

First, to determine whether there is a God or Gods we'd need to have an idea of just what the heck we were trying to prove or disprove.

What we have are just a load of claims by various religions, many of which have now died off (like the Greek Pantheon) and seem highly unlikely to be geniune candidates for 'God'.

Are the core of this is one concept - Cause - Intelligent or Random.

If the cause is intelligent then there must be a being or beings to have caused it. If it's random then that is self explanitory. However, both of these routes are fraught with circular arguments and neither one can be raised above the other.

For example, If God is the First Cause, who created God? If the universe 'Always' existed, then what does that even mean? It's a concept beyond conceptualisation even in math.

We may cite various arguments, but a simple one is show me some things in the world that have no cause - we are surrounded by evidence that everything has a cause. Every movement, life form has cause. So cause certainly exists. Whether a first cause exists is open to debate but it certainly faces challenges because even ideas about universal inflation fail to deal with a reasonable explanation of what caused it - it ends up ex nihlo which is just as preposterous as many of the catholic claims from the dark ages.

As to whether God existing has anything to do with whether we have a life after this, the answer is No. God could exist and not care (although i think that is unlikely). Any being capable of 1st cause would be capable of creating a chain that didn't have pointless side effects, therefore we have a point (assuming intelligent cause).

The argument that is missing here is this. God might evolve - we might be the Gods of the future. If God doesn't exist today, then he might exist in the future (perhaps a super computer). If God exists in the future even as a super computer then God could solve all of the space time issues and become omnipresent, which means even if God doesn't exist today he will and if he will he does because he could cover time and space.

But outside of speculation nobody on here knows a damn thing in either direction.

I don't think that anyone has ever proven that there cannot be an infinite number of movers. Nor does a hypothetical first mover have to be god. Aquinas simply fit god into the argument.

We know infinities come in different sizes, now that is one to try to bend your mind around.

Infinite movers would require infinite energy. Where might that energy come from?

As Kant noted, surely everything should have happened already given that if we look back we look back into infinity. WOuldn't it be the case that everything would already have settled into stasis?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 08:10PM by lilburne.

we only see 3, or 4 if you count movement through time.

Nobody can be certain. The question is what degree of uncertainty a person can bear.

I have fire insurance. Chances are I pay my whole life without needing it. But the risk, however small, is big enough for me to act on.

The odds that a supernatural sky fairy exists, on the other hand, are not enough for me to act on. I am certain enough to not let it control my life choices.

The same way you can be certain a person charged with a crime is guilty. Or the same way you can be certain there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. By the preponderance of the evidence. Pretty simple really.

I much prefer Tao or Logos to "Dark Matter/Energy", "Black Holes" or "The Great Attractor"


^^^^^^^

:o)

tell me how you know the thousands of other gods are not real ?

Maybe they're like foreign money: not "real" here (nonnegotiable), but they are some other place. Maybe you can convert them.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tell me how you know the thousands of other gods
> are not real ?
How can you be certain rainbows are not just a figment of your vivid imagination?
Honestly I think the word 'god' is a symbol of man's inability to grasp the vast mystery of the cosmos and his place in it, so we make up names for it to be able to relate to it on a personal level. Culturally Gods are real, in that they are a way for most of a particular society to unite around a common, unifying belief, even if that belief is fiction. Fiction plays a major role in uniting people by dividing them against 'others' who don't share the same tribal beliefs.
Like American's who recite the words "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance" and trade in currency with our nations motto emblazoned across the top "IN GOD WE TRUST". "God" is very real to the vast majority of Americans.
I don't have a problem with the use of the word 'God' on our money and in our Nation's motto. I'd prefer Tao or Logos, but I'm not Congress, so I accept it as an American.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have a problem with the use of the word
> 'God' on our money and in our Nation's motto. I'd
> prefer Tao or Logos, but I'm not Congress, so I
> accept it as an American.

So, to be "an American," you have to accept whatever congress does, and not disagree with it or criticize it, even when it's contrary to the constitution and ridiculous?
How sad.

It's not sad to accept the reality of the society in which I live. What would be sad would be to kick against the pricks my whole life by rejecting my nations motto and refusing to utter it's pledge of allegiance because of my ego.
I'm just not hung up on a word. When I see, hear or use the word 'god' I think of the Stoic/Epicurean/Taoist concept of the word, not the anthropomorphic version my neighbors and co workers believe in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2015 10:45AM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not sad to accept the reality of the society
> in which I live. What would be sad would be to
> kick against the pricks my whole life by rejecting
> my nations motto and refusing to utter it's pledge
> of allegiance because of my ego.

Ego has nothing to do with it. And apparently you're still stuck on mormon terms and attitudes ("kick against the pricks"). If your nation's motto were "in garden fairies we trust," wouldn't that be worth NOT using, and pointing out the silliness of? Same thing with what it is now.

> I'm just not hung up on a word. When I see, hear
> or use the word 'god' I think of the
> Stoic/Epicurean/Taoist concept of the word, not
> the anthropomorphic version my neighbors and co
> workers believe in.

It seems otherwise, when you think it's "better" to replace accurate, useful descriptions of things in the universe with a word that isn't accurate or useful. The "god of the gaps" approach is very shortsighted at best, calling whatever we currently don't understand "god" (or "the logos" or anything else) -- what happens in 5,10,20 years, when what's unknown now is known? Will you still give it mystical, inaccurate terms? Or will you then apply those to some other unknown thing inaccurately? Why not just be accurate from the get-go?

When I turned 40 the DGAF gene took over my body and my mind.

Submitting to it has made me healthier, happier, an wealthier than I ever have been.

Why do I post this here?

Because the DGAF answers the question. In fact, it answers all questions.

Philosophers will cry havoc and existentialists will wail at the brutality, but at the end of the day DGAF is the answer.

Good luck :)