God does not exist

God exists. I have grown close to Him over the years and His presence is felt inside of me. I know there is no way of proving this to others, since it can only be proved to oneself. Also, there is no way for an Athiest to explain miracles, healing, and exorcism. I would suggest reading the book Can Man Live Without God by Ravi Zacharias which disproves many claims made by Athiests. (Athiesm is a state of belief as is religion)

This is, of course, a very common argument put forward by religious people fairly often.  It's a very convenient argument because it essentially says that we can't use science to demonstrate that God does or does not exist.  Of course this is plainly false and doesn't even make sense.  Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?  Can you back that argument up with any independent sources or evidence?  Of course you can't, and the reason you can't is that this argument that there is no way of proving God to others comes from the fact that science so totally destroys the belief in God that they have to resort to making up arguments that attempt to explain why science isn't credible.  If what they're saying is true they would be able to back it up easily.

It's all very well to say that you feel the presence of God and that miracles, healing and exorcism exists but the fact is that all the independent studies into this apparent existence have failed.  Indeed scientists can now show that religious people of all religions, including non-theistic religions such as Buddhism all experience the same feelings when they pray/mediate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

It's also well documented that people of all kinds of religions make the similar outlandish and unbelievable claims.  For example in parts of Africa where they have strong religions involving spirits and witches, it is easy to find people who claim to have seen witches flying overhead.  However can you explain why in places that don't have those beliefs you can't find people who make the same claims?  Why is that people who don't live in cultures indoctrinated with a particular religious belief ever take up those beliefs until they get in contact with them?  Why is that God only tells you what to believe when you already know what he wants you to believe?  Why does he never give out information that people don't already have?

People have all kinds of irrational and unreasoned beliefs.  In fact there are many explanations for why they hold those beliefs.  In particular it is built in to people to believe what they're told from a young age and to personify objects.  This is because children who believe their parents when they say not to go near the fire are less likely to be burnt and people who are quick to realise the intent of an animal are less likely to be eaten by it.   Unfortunately that also means that they believe the lies they are told about religion and they find it easy to assume things have an intent when they actually don't.

Regarding Can Man Live Without God

Here is a great article that explains just what a load of unreasoned and illogical crap that book is.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html

I would finally like to point out that atheism and religion are completely different types of belief.  While you can define everything as a 'belief' - religion is a belief in things that are unbacked up by observational evidence and have no probability of actually being true.  Atheism, on the other hand, is based on observing the world and trying to draw conclusions based on what we actually see in the world.  This is a completely different view.  It's one where you question what you're told and are prepared to change your views as new facts are presented.  For example, for a long time atheists didn't understand why people believed in God and wrote them off as either crazy or brainwashed.  Now we know that it is an evolutionary trait, probably an unlucky cause of other more useful evolutionary advantages our mind has.

That said, just because we understand why something happens, it doesn't mean that we should be part of it.

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

Uhhh... essentially, yes I can.  Later today (I have class coming up) I'll try to remember to get back on here and explain to you a concept of 'god' that cannot be tested by science.  Basically, it's because we exist in two different realms.  But I'll explain that later and it probably won't sound all that hard to believe.

science so totally destroys the belief in God

Not necessarily, again.  Not if science cannot measure god's realm.

If what they're saying is true they would be able to back it up easily.

Why?

I don't know if responding with "yes I have an answer, but you'll have to wait until later for me to post it" is a very strong argument.

You've refuted some points but I'll refrain from commenting until you put forward an argument backing up what you've said.

Regarding your question of why they should be able to back up their claims - if they can't back them up, there is no reason to believe them and obviously a lot of good reasons not to believe them.  A theory without any evidence behind it is meaningless - and that's what these types of religious theories are - meaningless.  We can think about them as much as we like, but until their is some significant evidence to support them, we can easily dismiss them as utter rubbish.

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

Sure. Science is based on the cycle of observation, theory, hypothesis, observation. Suppose one wanted to use science to disprove the existence of a divine being. Well, our theory is that there is no divine being, so we need to make a hypothesis about some observation we might be able to carry out that would go one way if there was, or another if there was not. But to do this, we need said divine being to directly intervene in our experiment. So there is know way of knowing whether there was no divine being, or there was one who chose not to act. On the other hand, suppose that some observation has no natural explanation. How can we ever know that there is no natural explanation, and not just that we can't think of one?

The problem is that supernatural explanations can in principle explain anything, but so can some unknown natural force or agent that we don't yet know the properties of, and we can never prove which is the cause of some unexplained phenomena.

I don't know if responding with "yes I have an answer, but you'll have to wait until later for me to post it" is a very strong argument.

Come on beast, he wasn't saying it was. He was just saying that he intended to post one later, and you should check back when he did.

I have to disagree with beast; we can't formulate and test a hypothesis of "There is no God". Science has nothing to say here.
However, logic has a great deal to say. Theists are the ones making a positive claim here. It is therefore on them to bring forth evidence that God exists, not on atheists to bring evidence that he does not. It is irrational to believe a positive claim that is not substantiated by evidence.

Dysfunction is quite correct. It is for those who believe in a deity to prove its existance (they seem very willing to do so most of the time anyway.)

Dysfunction is quite correct. It is for those who believe in a deity to prove its existance (they seem very willing to do so most of the time anyway.)

They seem willing to provide fallacious arguments, but nothing I would call *evidence*.

Me either, but they think it is evidence.  :roll:

Dysfunction is quite correct. It is for those who believe in a deity to prove its existance (they seem very willing to do so most of the time anyway.)

I don't know if I'd agree.  I think it is still beneficial for non-believers to try to disprove/prove a deity's existence.  I myself would believe in the Christian God if there were actually some substantial evidence to supports its existence.  Or any God for that matter.

I'm sure most atheists would share the same sentiments.

It depends what sort of athiest you are. I am one, and have been for many years. However, I don't feel like I need to 'spread the word' like some sort of mirror image missionary. Usually because people don't listen, but that's bneside the point.
So, if the religious people are going to try to convince me it is they that bear the onus of proof.

Quote from: "Ashantai"

Dysfunction is quite correct. It is for those who believe in a deity to prove its existance (they seem very willing to do so most of the time anyway.)

I don't know if I'd agree.  I think it is still beneficial for non-believers to try to disprove/prove a deity's existence.  I myself would believe in the Christian God if there were actually some substantial evidence to supports its existence.  Or any God for that matter.

I'm sure most atheists would share the same sentiments.

We don't have to, and can't possibly, disprove god's existence. All we have to do is show it's currently irrational to believe in him.

Him? It? She? That'd be worth seeing, they prove there is a god and find out it's female!!  :lol:

But you're right Dysfunction, seriously.

It depends what sort of athiest you are. I am one, and have been for many years. However, I don't feel like I need to 'spread the word' like some sort of mirror image missionary.

I'm glad of this. As an atheist, I'm baffled by the desire of the New Atheist movement to "spread the good word" of atheism, and criticise religion on the basis of spreading intolerance. But the evangelical atheists are doing the exact same thing! They use the same justification that every other religion uses: they think that if everyone else believed what they did, the world would be a better place. They (both the religions and the atheists) are probably right about this, because if everyone had the same beliefs, there would be one less thing for us to fight about. But in trying to stamp out diversity with the justification that everyone who isn't an atheist is wrong and moreover lends power to intolerence is trying to put out the fire by pouring on lighter fluid.

Quote from: "beast"

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

Uhhh... essentially, yes I can.  Later today (I have class coming up) I'll try to remember to get back on here and explain to you a concept of 'god' that cannot be tested by science.  Basically, it's because we exist in two different realms.  But I'll explain that later and it probably won't sound all that hard to believe.

If interactions cannot occur between the two realms, it doesn't matter to one if the other exists. If they can indeed interact, they are the same realm.

Quote from: "Ashantai"

It depends what sort of athiest you are. I am one, and have been for many years. However, I don't feel like I need to 'spread the word' like some sort of mirror image missionary.

I'm glad of this. As an atheist, I'm baffled by the desire of the New Atheist movement to "spread the good word" of atheism, and criticise religion on the basis of spreading intolerance.

There's this evil thing in our world. Should we not stamp it out?

There's this evil thing in our world. Should we not stamp it out?

Just because you think religion is evil does not mean it actually is. I should also point out that the concept of evil is in itself a religious concept, since without a God or gods it doesn't exist.

I agree with you, but that doesn't make us right.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

There's this evil thing in our world. Should we not stamp it out?

Just because you think religion is evil does not mean it actually is. I should also point out that the concept of evil is in itself a religious concept, since without a God or gods it doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure that the concept of evil is still valid without a God or gods.  Just because ethics may not be dictated by a transcendent being, doesn't mean that there can't be a universal set of ethics that we all can agree on, which defines what actions are "good" and what actions are "bad."

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

I'm glad of this. As an atheist, I'm baffled by the desire of the New Atheist movement to "spread the good word" of atheism, and criticise religion on the basis of spreading intolerance.

There's this evil thing in our world. Should we not stamp it out?

Not if in doing so, we become it.

A theory without any evidence behind it is meaningless - and that's what these types of religious theories are - meaningless.

I sharply disagree with this statement for a couple of reasons:

1) Religious belief is a methodology that makes assumptions from the beginning that cannot be proven (within the methodology of that given belief system).  Scientific belief is a methodology that makes assumptions from the beginning that cannot be proven (within the methodology of that given belief system).  

2) Religions are very meaningful.  If you mean by "meaningless," "that which has no meaning," then it is a clearly preposterous claim.  Now, if you mean by "meaningless," "that which does not exist in fundamental reality" then you might have a valid point.

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

My argument is this:

If I mean by the word 'god' something that is a 'creator,' it is very possible that we rationally cannot test the creator's existence with scientific method.  This is essentially because the creator very well may exist outside of our world (i.e. that our world exists within the world of the creator but his does not exist inside ours).  To illustrate this, let me give an example of a possible conception of a creator.  Assume that one thousand years from now, scientists have mastered Artificial Intelligence and have been able to successfully utilize it.  If a scientist creates an Artificially Intelligent being into existence (out of energy), and places that Artificially Intelligent being in a computer program, the world of the creator is not observable from the world of the computer program that the being lives in.  Essentially, the AI being can just be a computer program itself living in a computer program.  In this sense, that being, let's call it Fred (the AI being), would be the creation of the creator (Janet).  Janet would be a 'god' (if used to mean 'creator') to Fred.  If in Fred's world, he attempts to observe that which is outside of his observable world (namely, the creator Janet), Fred will find that he cannot do so.

To me, this use of the word 'god' does not necessarily break the rules of logic or rational thought.  Keep in mind that the AI computer program analogy is only an example of how it can be possible.  Also keep in mind that Janet (the creator, or 'god' of Fred) is not the creator of her own world.  She is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. in regards to the world she lives in.

Anyway, I believe that illustrates that there are possible conceptions of 'god' that cannot be measured scientifically from within the computer program world.

However, logic has a great deal to say. Theists are the ones making a positive claim here. It is therefore on them to bring forth evidence that God exists, not on atheists to bring evidence that he does not. It is irrational to believe a positive claim that is not substantiated by evidence.

Good point.  It is necessary for any conception of 'god' to be logical in order for it to be believed and in order for it to have any chance of existing in fundamental reality.  There are actually several logical arguments for the existence of god that are rationally obligatory (that is, no rational person can deny their truth).  However, these rational arguments for the existence of god tend to not describe the god as a 'being' (a thing with distinct properties).  Instead, these rational arguments only hold up if 'god is meant to be 'Being' (that is, "to be") or meant to be 'thinking.'  One cannot rationally deny that 'Being' or 'thinking' exists, and therefore these synonyms for 'god' are rationally obligatory.

As a side note, none of the religious tribal gods are rationally obligatory.  That is, the character "God" from the Bible is obviously not rationally obligatory.  One can be rational and not believe in the existence of this god, but one cannot be rational and not believe in the existence of the verb-god 'to be' or 'to think' (that is, 'Being' or 'thinking).  A wonderful discussion.

This is a rather strange definition of God you have, Knight. It seems God could be anything at all by your definition; and in that case what meaning does the word have?

I'm pretty sure that the concept of evil is still valid without a God or gods.  Just because ethics may not be dictated by a transcendent being, doesn't mean that there can't be a universal set of ethics that we all can agree on, which defines what actions are "good" and what actions are "bad."

Of course. I meant that there is no intrinsic quality in the universe that defines things as "good" or "evil", and the concepts are, insofar as we know, human ones.

Quote from: "Ubuntu"

There's this evil thing in our world. Should we not stamp it out?

Just because you think religion is evil does not mean it actually is.

:shock: I am thunderstruck by this revelation!

I should also point out that the concept of evil is in itself a religious concept, since without a God or gods it doesn't exist.

Whereas evil means "immoral" and "immoral" means "causing human suffering and reducing human happiness," it would be inane to say religion invented the concept.


Very few sensible atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, would like to pass laws or use violence against religion. However, many sensible atheists would like to show the many faithful the errors in their beliefs and would like that children are properly educated.

The "mission" of the "New Atheists" could be executed with a minimum of conflict... legally and physically that is.

Quote from: "beast"

Can you please explain a rational reason why we can't test the existence of God with scientific method?

My argument is this:

If I mean by the word 'god' something that is a 'creator,' it is very possible that we rationally cannot test the creator's existence with scientific method.  This is essentially because the creator very well may exist outside of our world (i.e. that our world exists within the world of the creator but his does not exist inside ours).  To illustrate this, let me give an example of a possible conception of a creator.  Assume that one thousand years from now, scientists have mastered Artificial Intelligence and have been able to successfully utilize it.  If a scientist creates an Artificially Intelligent being into existence (out of energy), and places that Artificially Intelligent being in a computer program, the world of the creator is not observable from the world of the computer program that the being lives in.  Essentially, the AI being can just be a computer program itself living in a computer program.  In this sense, that being, let's call it Fred (the AI being), would be the creation of the creator (Janet).  Janet would be a 'god' (if used to mean 'creator') to Fred.  If in Fred's world, he attempts to observe that which is outside of his observable world (namely, the creator Janet), Fred will find that he cannot do so.

To me, this use of the word 'god' does not necessarily break the rules of logic or rational thought.  Keep in mind that the AI computer program analogy is only an example of how it can be possible.  Also keep in mind that Janet (the creator, or 'god' of Fred) is not the creator of her own world.  She is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. in regards to the world she lives in.

Anyway, I believe that illustrates that there are possible conceptions of 'god' that cannot be measured scientifically from within the computer program world.

The one thing that stands out to me, is that the computer program (or our "realm") is contained within Janet/God's "realm".  I'm fairly sure what you do mean by the two "realms", but in this case they are completely within contact with each other at all times (being that God's realm exists "around" the creation's realm).  I don't see how hypothetically that Fred couldn't eventually decipher the workings of his universe (the computer program), and eventually find out a way to "transcend" his realm--like patching his way from his program into another program, or even find a way to communicate with or observe the "parent" realm.  Going of of your same analogy, Computers have input and output devices (otherwise they're kind of useless as devices)--so who says that the universe we live in, if it was indeed created, there aren't "input" and "output" devices to this creator's realm?

I also beg to ask the question that I'm sure beast will ask as well: Where did Janet come from?  Who created the creator, and if no one--how can the creator just flat out exist?  It just doesn't make sense.

:shock: I am thunderstruck by this revelation!

Since you said that we have an evil thing that should be stomped out I, felt it pertinent to the discussion at hand. Believing that something is bad or evil (when other people do not) does not give you the right to eliminate it.

Whereas evil means "immoral" and "immoral" means "causing human suffering and reducing human happiness," it would be inane to say religion invented the concept.

As I've said before, it very much depends on your definition of "Evil".

Very few sensible atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, would like to pass laws or use violence against religion. However, many sensible atheists would like to show the many faithful the errors in their beliefs and would like that children are properly educated.

The "mission" of the "New Atheists" could be executed with a minimum of conflict... legally and physically that is.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter how little conflict would be needed to accomplish it. The simple fact that you cannot know that you are right means that you cannot reasonably attempt to force your beliefs on another person.

Where did Janet come from?  Who created the creator, and if no one--how can the creator just flat out exist?  It just doesn't make sense.

Magic dancing monkeys ad infinitum.

Believing that something is bad or evil (when other people do not) does not give you the right to eliminate it.

Our veterans didn't hesitate with the Nazis.

The simple fact that you cannot know that you are right means that you cannot reasonably attempt to force your beliefs on another person.

"Force"? Goodness no sir. That is the polar opposite of what trying to convince someone to see is.

The simple fact that you cannot know that you are right means that you cannot reasonably attempt to force your beliefs on another person.

It means nothing of the sort.  Barring mathematical truths, nobody can really know they are right about anything; that doesn't mean they can't reasonably attempt to "force their beliefs on another person", whatever that means.  I consider it my right to try to convince other people of anything I want, and if I think that believing a certain thing is dangerous to the believer or those around him, and I give a damn, I will consider it my ethical responsibility to try to convince him otherwise, even if it means "forcing my belief" on him.

It means nothing of the sort.  Barring mathematical truths, nobody can really know they are right about anything; that doesn't mean they can't reasonably attempt to "force their beliefs on another person", whatever that means.  I consider it my right to try to convince other people of anything I want, and if I think that believing a certain thing is dangerous to the believer or those around him, and I give a damn, I will consider it my ethical responsibility to try to convince him otherwise, even if it means "forcing my belief" on him.

I agree with you, I'm just talking about religious beliefs against atheism here, nothing more. By "force your beliefs on another person" I didn't mean "try to convince people of anything you want". I was referring to "stamping out this evil thing in our world".

This is a rather strange definition of God you have, Knight.

I tend to find the defintion of 'god' as "creator" or "that which creates" not very strange, really.  I'm sure other people use this defintion.

It seems God could be anything at all by your definition; and in that case what meaning does the word have?

First off, "God" is usually a character (or a certain 'god'--meaning a certain 'being').  The term 'god,' throughout history, has been defined as "that which is fundamental" or "that which there is no going behind."  Therefore, it can easily be concluded that "thinking" and "Being" are perfect synonyms of the verb-god.  There is nothing more fundamental than "Being."

I don't see how hypothetically that Fred couldn't eventually decipher the workings of his universe (the computer program), and eventually find out a way to "transcend" his realm--like patching his way from his program into another program

Keep in mind that the analogy is probably not the only working example.  But what you're essentially saying is that if, in a thousand years, Janet (the human being, scientist, computer programmer) creates a computer program with an AI being named Fred (who is a computer program within the world-program), Fred (a computer program) can somehow transcend the computer program-ness that he lives in and come into what we think of as the "real world."  I don't think this is possible by virtue of the fact that what we think of as "real world" presents a visible disconnect to a computer program.  It seems that it would be possible for the computer programmer, Janet, to create Fred in such a way that he cannot transcend the world in which he lives (in our case, the universe).

Where did Janet come from? Who created the creator, and if no one--how can the creator just flat out exist? It just doesn't make sense.

George is the god (creator) of Janet's realm (or universe).  Billy is the god (creator) of George's realm (or universe).  Etc., etc., etc...

Essentially, to answer your question, you're asking "What about fundamental reality?"  I admit that this model says nothing at all about a creator that exists fundamentally, at the end of the long chain of creators.  However, it doesn't really matter.  Because if the example I provided is logically possible, then Janet could still give us religious things like "life after death" (heaven) or "death after death" (hell).  In essence, our god (if it is a 'being') is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. in fundamental reality, but that being can still basically do anything he/she wants to our universe.  Could be a Deist god running an experiment to see how things turn out.  Who knows... But the essential thing to realize is that I never claimed to answer the question "What is fundamentally real?"  Really, that question cannot be knowningly answered...ever.  It could be that fundamental reality is much different than what we observe it to be in our computer program universe.

I consider it my right to try to convince other people of anything I want, and if I think that believing a certain thing is dangerous to the believer or those around him, and I give a damn, I will consider it my ethical responsibility to try to convince him otherwise, even if it means "forcing my belief" on him.

You can believe this if you want, but that doesn't mean you can't cause a great deal of harm by trying to convince others of your beliefs, even if you do it by reasonable persuasion.

The New Atheists say, publically, that not only is religion wrong, but it perpetrates evil in the world, such as encouraging intolerance, and goes on to state that even moderate adherents to a religious faith are complicit in this, because their mere presence adds weight to the intolerant statements of the religious conservatives who preach intolerance. Essentially they are saying that all religious followers are helping to cause intolerance. How is this any better than religious conservatives who state that homosexuality is a sin?

They have the right to preach whatever they want, but that doesn't stop them from being hypocrites when they do.