Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

[Anonymous]

Let’s see if we can knock out a couple more:

#4 Argument from perfection: We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

This just doesn’t follow. Even if it’s true that people judge things against an absolute standard of perfection, that doesn’t mean that such a thing exists. Example: The perfect day for me is one in which I wake up after a fresh snowfall, play with my son in it for an hour, come in and have hot chocolate, go back out and enjoy the beautiful spring day. Spend the hot summer afternoon at the pool, toast marshmallows around a campfire in the crisp autumn air in the evening, and win the lottery. That doesn’t mean such a day has ever happened or could happen.

#7 The argument from consciousness (derivation of design). We experience the universe as intelligible. So the universe is graspable by intelligence. Either the intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance. It cannot be blind chance. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

“It cannot be blind chance” is more a hope than an argument.

#8 The argument from truth (Platonic forms). Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. Truth resides in a mind. The human mind is not eternal. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.

Again, the premises are not demonstrably true, and are almost comically facile.

#9 The argument from conscience

Even the subjectivist thinks he should follow his conscience. Where does the conscience get such absolute authority? From something less than me (natural instinct), from myself (who is not an absolute being), from others equal to me (society is not an absolute being), or from something above me (God)? The only source of absolute moral obligation must be a superior being. This is God.

This is equivalent to saying “there is a god because I feel there must be a god.” It’s not argument.

[Anonymous]

On the intelligent design argument.. Who says we understand the universe? We've been working damn hard on physics for a very long time. I feel like we have a fair amount of knowledge, but don't yet have the full grasp. Lack of knowledge is not a reasonable argument for a creator.

A theist has all of the same information available to them as I do. We have access to all the same facts and claims. We just come to different conclusions based on the evidence.

Morality is part of our societal structure. The desire for fairness and justice is part of human nature. It is instinctual. I can think about my actions and ponder the consequences they will have on other people and on myself. Most people have this ability. Those who make poor moral choices frequently do so based on desperation, ignorance, emotion and impulsivity. There are some who lack the capacity for empathy. The morality in the holy texts of all three of the major, monotheistic religions is flawed. Not all of it, but some of it is seriously wrong.

As for the Aztecs and their infanticide, it came from ignorance. We can now look back and say that killing babies does not impact the weather, but they "knew" killing a baby would save their population by providing rain and food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.


So that gets rid of the design argument.

"Spontaneous creation Is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," is what Steven Hawking says.

First, why is Steven Hawking your absolute authority? Are you saying he is omniscient?

Second, his statement is not so much a rejection of a first mover, an Uncaused cause, as a renaming of it as "spontaneous creation.". So nothing created something out of nothing versus someone created something out of nothing. Which statement makes more sense?

Third, our understanding of how things came to be does not answer why things came to be. Hawking himself said in an earlier book "if we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we should know the mind of God.". But we would only know how, not why.

There is nothing science can learn that would require disbelief in a Creator. Rather, science should allow us to draw closer to God, since He is the Author of science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Objective" is defined as "independent of the knower and his consciousness." Truth, according to Aristotle's definition, is defined as "saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not.". Truth means "telling it like it is."

Okay. But as I said before, you're engaging in the fallacy of conflating physical "truths" with moral "truths". As many have pointed out, they're not the same thing. Moral truths are fluid. That's why the question "How can you have morality without God" is a nonsensical one. Morality is a byproduct of consciousness. It is by definition subjective.

Your only response to this seems to be that, no it's objective. And God is its arbiter. Therefore he exists.

Obviously, this is a completely unpersuasive argument unless you've got an existing attachment to the God Hypothesis. Perhaps why CS Lewis (assume he agrees with you) is so compelling to true believers, and so uncompelling to non-believers.

Earlier, I made the distinction between physical truths and moral truths. Religious skeptics and subjectivists are not universal skeptics (no truth is knowable) or universal subjectivists (all truth is subjective). Religious skeptics and subjectivists concede objective truth is knowable in nonreligious fields. Just not in morality. The statement "moral truths are fluid" is the definition of a religious subjectivist.

You mentioned one version of religious subjectivism: morality is a byproduct of consciousness. We learn God from our mothers. We learn values from society. The origin of values is not something objective outside of human minds, but within the minds themselves. What comes from humans is subjective.

This confuses our opinions about morality with morality itself. If there is an Absolute Authority on morality (God), then our opinions about morality are not the same thing as morality.

You would say they are, in fact, one and the same. Our opinions about morality are morality, sum total. That is why morality is fluid.

That is possibly true. But then the Aztecs were perfectly right to rip those babies' hearts out.

Again, there's a broad spectrum between vanilla-flavored ice-cream and shit-flavored ice cream. Is chocolate "truer" than vanilla. Again, sophistry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:# 10 The argument from quiescence.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? God.

# 11 The argument from unknowability.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? God.

# 12 The argument from Wayne's World.

Asphinctorsayswhat? God.

# 13 The argument from Houston.

How will I know if he really loves me? God.

Madame, I wish to buy you a drink.

[Anonymous]

Time to lighten things up a bit.

A group of Darwinian scientists decided enough was enough. It was time to tell God He was not needed anymore. So they announced loudly, "We know now that science has the answers for many things humans once considered miraculous. We can clone plants, animals, and people and so you can just get lost."

God listened patiently and said, "Very well, I can respect that. How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."

The scientists got happy and excited. God added, "This will be like the good old days, when I made Adam out of dust."

The scientists went to grab some dust of their own, but God said, "No no no! Go make your own dust!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

Because you want to convince me I should not believe in God? (Trying to figure out how to choose)

As I said: arguing in bad faith. An honest dialogue consists of two parties being open with one another. Not one party throwing up chaff, and trying to avoid being "converted to atheism".

[Anonymous]

Ok, one more moment of fun:

An atheist was hiking out in the beautiful mountains, admiring all the beautiful accidents of chance and chaos around him--the trees, the streams, the birds taking flight. Suddenly, his reverie is broken when an angry bear came charging out of the woods!

He tried to run, heart pounding, fear blinding him, but he could not escape! The bear was on top of him, lifting a huge paw!

"OH MY GOD!" the poor man cried.

Suddenly, everything froze. The water stopped flowing the birds stopped in midair, and the bear stopped in its swipe. The skies opened up, and a voice came out of the sky:

"You have denied my existence all these years, but now you believe in me?"

"No, I don't," the man said. "But perhaps You could make the bear a believer?"

"Very well," said the voice.

Everything came back into motion, but the bear stopped his assault. He kneeled, bowed his head, brought both paws together, and said,

"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.


So that gets rid of the design argument.

"Spontaneous creation Is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," is what Steven Hawking says.

First, why is Steven Hawking your absolute authority? Are you saying he is omniscient?

Second, his statement is not so much a rejection of a first mover, an Uncaused cause, as a renaming of it as "spontaneous creation.". So nothing created something out of nothing versus someone created something out of nothing. Which statement makes more sense?

Third, our understanding of how things came to be does not answer why things came to be. Hawking himself said in an earlier book "if we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we should know the mind of God.". But we would only know how, not why.

There is nothing science can learn that would require disbelief in a Creator. Rather, science should allow us to draw closer to God, since He is the Author of science.

NP here.

First, Hawking knows more about the actual workings of the universe from the moment of creation than most people.

Second, both are possible. But there is no evidence to support a God. If there is a God, who made him? What caused God? If you can believe "he always was" it is just as easy to believe that the universe always was. As for the statement that you think Hawking believes something was made out of nothing, you can read physics just like I read the bible to understand more about what physicists really mean.

Third, there may be no reason for why the world exists. It may well be that it just "is". When Hawking talks about the mind of God, he is not a believer in God. He does not need a why in the sense that you are looking for. His why is fundamental forces. A psychological need for "why" the universe exists does not mean that there is an answer to that need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do none of these arguments, or any arguments for the existence of God, count as possible evidence? Or, conversely, what evidence would you require?

We could have lengthy discussions about any of them. I don't see how it makes sense to respond to a laundry list of things you found in a book but don't personally believe in. If your point is "here are a dozen or so reasons, surely one of them must be a winner" then I'd like to get to the ones that you think are important.

Because you want to convince me I should not believe in God? (Trying to figure out how to choose)

As I said: arguing in bad faith. An honest dialogue consists of two parties being open with one another. Not one party throwing up chaff, and trying to avoid being "converted to atheism".

That is not what I meant, though I do not have unlimited time...I have had a lucky confluence of dentist appointments and long naps from the baby, but I do have an existence independent of DCUM.

Again, I started this thread because I have been wrestling with doubt. I invited an honest dialogue, and I have been scrupulously (and embarrassingly) honest in each of my posts. I am not worried about being "converted to atheism.". Doubt is not the opposite of faith--it is an essential part of it. I have hated God, rejected God, forgotten God, resented God, ignored God, worshipped God, begged God, erased God, and made myself God.

We can continue the dialogue, gladly so, but I am not all-knowing, so I will be stumped sometimes, no doubt about that . Bottom line, though, is that we can type until our fingers are sore, and it does not mean we will find a resolution. Since God is not walking with us here, we will be left hanging at "I know, but do I believe?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.


So that gets rid of the design argument.

"Spontaneous creation Is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," is what Steven Hawking says.

First, why is Steven Hawking your absolute authority? Are you saying he is omniscient?

Second, his statement is not so much a rejection of a first mover, an Uncaused cause, as a renaming of it as "spontaneous creation.". So nothing created something out of nothing versus someone created something out of nothing. Which statement makes more sense?

Third, our understanding of how things came to be does not answer why things came to be. Hawking himself said in an earlier book "if we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we should know the mind of God.". But we would only know how, not why.

There is nothing science can learn that would require disbelief in a Creator. Rather, science should allow us to draw closer to God, since He is the Author of science.

NP here.

First, Hawking knows more about the actual workings of the universe from the moment of creation than most people.

Second, both are possible. But there is no evidence to support a God. If there is a God, who made him? What caused God? If you can believe "he always was" it is just as easy to believe that the universe always was. As for the statement that you think Hawking believes something was made out of nothing, you can read physics just like I read the bible to understand more about what physicists really mean.

Third, there may be no reason for why the world exists. It may well be that it just "is". When Hawking talks about the mind of God, he is not a believer in God. He does not need a why in the sense that you are looking for. His why is fundamental forces. A psychological need for "why" the universe exists does not mean that there is an answer to that need.

NP here, too, but I'm related to the OP

Certainly, Hawking is brilliant and uniquely knowledgable. But is he perfect? Does he know everything there is to know? Was he an eyewitness to creation? Unless you are claiming his omniscience, he could be mistaken.

Next, you state there is no evidence to support a God, which is an a priori statement when followed by "who made God?". By definition, God is the uncreated Creator. So Hawking's "spontaneous creation" is His term for the concept.

And if there is no reason for the world to exist, why are humans instinctually programmed to ask why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time to lighten things up a bit.

A group of Darwinian scientists decided enough was enough. It was time to tell God He was not needed anymore. So they announced loudly, "We know now that science has the answers for many things humans once considered miraculous. We can clone plants, animals, and people and so you can just get lost."

God listened patiently and said, "Very well, I can respect that. How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."

The scientists got happy and excited. God added, "This will be like the good old days, when I made Adam out of dust."

The scientists went to grab some dust of their own, but God said, "No no no! Go make your own dust!"

I got a chuckle out of that. But it's pretty telling on another level. First, what is a "Darwinian scientist"? Second, there's the laughable projection that has the scientists being the prideful ones with all the answers (as opposed to the religious folks who claim to have all the answers in a single book, but can't provide any evidence). Thirdly, why is it that God only ever interacts with humans in jokes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.


So that gets rid of the design argument.

"Spontaneous creation Is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," is what Steven Hawking says.

First, why is Steven Hawking your absolute authority? Are you saying he is omniscient?

Second, his statement is not so much a rejection of a first mover, an Uncaused cause, as a renaming of it as "spontaneous creation.". So nothing created something out of nothing versus someone created something out of nothing. Which statement makes more sense?

Third, our understanding of how things came to be does not answer why things came to be. Hawking himself said in an earlier book "if we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for then we should know the mind of God.". But we would only know how, not why.

There is nothing science can learn that would require disbelief in a Creator. Rather, science should allow us to draw closer to God, since He is the Author of science.

NP here.

First, Hawking knows more about the actual workings of the universe from the moment of creation than most people.

Second, both are possible. But there is no evidence to support a God. If there is a God, who made him? What caused God? If you can believe "he always was" it is just as easy to believe that the universe always was. As for the statement that you think Hawking believes something was made out of nothing, you can read physics just like I read the bible to understand more about what physicists really mean.

Third, there may be no reason for why the world exists. It may well be that it just "is". When Hawking talks about the mind of God, he is not a believer in God. He does not need a why in the sense that you are looking for. His why is fundamental forces. A psychological need for "why" the universe exists does not mean that there is an answer to that need.

NP here, too, but I'm related to the OP

Certainly, Hawking is brilliant and uniquely knowledgable. But is he perfect? Does he know everything there is to know? Was he an eyewitness to creation? Unless you are claiming his omniscience, he could be mistaken.

Next, you state there is no evidence to support a God, which is an a priori statement when followed by "who made God?". By definition, God is the uncreated Creator. So Hawking's "spontaneous creation" is His term for the concept.

First of all, PP was trying to appeal to "physics." The foremost authority on physics thinks OP is full of it. That seems relevant.

Second of all, while I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your a priori razzle-dazzle, the bottom line is, as PP put it, "If you can believe 'he always was' it is just as easy to believe that the universe always was." All this special pleading about how your god is *by definition* the uncreated Creator is silly. Says you. But at the end of the day, Hawking's got "spontaneous creation of the Big Bang event (or whatever variant)", and you've got "spontaneous creation of an omniscient, omnipotent creator of universes...who then created the universe".

And if there is no reason for the world to exist, why are humans instinctually programmed to ask why?

This is just a dodge. Also question-begging (we're not "programmed", that would require a Creator. There isn't one). Anyway, stop dodging and answer the previous question: why is "big bang" less plausible than "big bang plus incredibly complex omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being?" It's obviously not.

[Anonymous]

Why does the beginning of our universe really matter? It doesn't. It's here and we live in it. We may never have proof of how it came to be. We have theories and some of us find some more believable than others.