The God Delusion

[Derach]

Sure there's a God and you can't prove there isn't ... just like there's a Santa Claus ... Here's what I tell my kids when we debate Santa's existence.

Kid - "Dad, there's no such thing as Santa"
Me - "Sure there is, who do you think put those gifts under the tree for you?"
Kid - "You did!"
Me - "They say they're from Santa, why would I buy you gifts and not take credit for them?"
Kid - "I don't know why, but you bought those gifts a Toys R Us and wrapped them in the same paper as YOUR gifts and the handwriting is the same as yours! ... You did it!"
Me - "well, if someone wanted to put gifts for me under a tree, I would thank whoever's name was on the label, because obviously, that's the person to whom WHOEVER acquired the gift wants credit for it to be given."

Soon I'll explain to them that there is a Santa, and as far as you are concerned, in your limited view of the universe, Santa is me. People's belief in Santa is an evolution from ...

1. There absolutely is a Santa (unfounded faith based on your parents and TV)

2. There absolutely is no Santa ('founded' faith based on 'evidence' as disserned to the best of your ability)

3. I become Santa (acceptance that we are who we choose to be and believe what we choose to believe and are accountable for the reprecussions thereof)

[Mozart1220]

Actually, the Bible supprts the concept of many Gods. I give you the 1st commandment.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Well, this atheist has never even wondered about that. Where in the theist belief system does the hypothesis of multiple universes fit? There's certainly nothing in the Bible about them, nor the Koran. I've never heard a sermon or read a Christian treatise on the subject.

There is no general "theist belief system". Theism amounts to the belief that a being intended to, and did create our universe.

My example pertained to Zhavric's begging of the question "Well how did god get here?"

He's assuming that theists reject the multiverse theory. I don't see that as necessary for theism - infact the multiverse theory facilitates the "how" in the question of divine existence.

[Kamehameha34]

He has in the past and continues to assume the only definable characteristic of god is god's lack of definable characteristics... which in turn allows him to insert god into any unknown and twist god out of any logical syllogism.

The same can be said for anything that no proof exists against. Even if I defined "god" into impossibility to make you feel adequate, there'd still be the concept I'm trying to discuss now. It would just be renamed.

[Derach]

How can you prove/disprove an abstract idea (much less one that has connotations of subjective emotion)? ... That's like trying to prove that listening to classical music is soothing to me ... Or working out makes me feel better ... or I gain a sense of serenity when the bills are paid. How can you disprove the existense of an abstract idea that someone claims to be beneficial to them?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It is an axoim.

How convenient? You do realize this is a tremendous cop out, yes? You do realize that your original statement is akin to such sophomoric statements as "Nothing can be proven"...

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 My example pertained to Zhavric's begging of the question "Well how did god get here?"

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

Fallacy: Begging the Question

Demanding evidence of a claim ("How did god come to be?") is not begging the question. Your first clue was when you quoted a me asking a question. Notice how the examples aren't questions?

I'm sick to death of you reaching into your fallacy grab bag with knee-jerk abandon and accusing me of whatever happens to pop out. Knock it off.

Moving on...

He's assuming that theists reject the multiverse theory. I don't see that as necessary for theism - infact the multiverse theory facilitates the "how" in the question of divine existence.

Just more skyhookery on your part. Theists assume god exists. There is absolutely no way for them to evidence god through a multiverse theory nor have I seen any of them try. It sounds about as valid as any other time theists try to insert god into scientific theory; "electrons form Zeus / Zeus is electrons."

Quote by: Kame Even if I defined "god" into impossibility to make you feel adequate, there'd still be the concept I'm trying to discuss now. It would just be renamed.

Quote by: Me As I stated before, it is a stance that is taken on utter blind faith as it's well understood the ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing.

Thank you for providing evidence for my point.

[Zhavric]

Regardless...


Stating "god created the universe" is on par with "the Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their first powered glider". So, the agnostic stance is akin to stating, "The Wright brothers may have used a Boeing 747 as their model for their first powered glider. We just don't know."

Sorry, but that's no more tenable than theism. There are things we do know and what we do know negates the possibility of god.

This is usually where the agnostic will come up with what if scenarios to account for the possibility of god. "What if a B747 went back in time and landed in Ohio?"... "What if the Wright Brothers were time travelers?" (etc ad nauseum). Such ramblings are every bit as unevidenced and untenable as the theist's image of god.

So, Kame, what's holding up your skyhook du jour?

[Kamehameha34]

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Yes, it also happens to be a fallacy. If I'm naming a fallacy, I won't be ambiguous about it - and it will be accurate.

Theists assume god exists. There is absolutely no way for them to evidence god through a multiverse theory nor have I seen any of them try.

But it renders your "boeing 747" example unanalogical.

As I stated before, it is a stance that is taken on utter blind faith as it's well understood the ability to conceptualize a thing does not evidence that thing.

Why do you think not atheist = theist? I'm not providing evidence for god - I'm not a theist. I'm deconstructing yours.

Stating "god created the universe" is on par with "the Wright brothers used a Boeing 747 as a model for their first powered glider". So, the agnostic stance is akin to stating, "The Wright brothers may have used a Boeing 747 as their model for their first powered glider. We just don't know."

Can you elaborate on your analogy for further deconstruction, or is it just conjecture?

This is usually where the agnostic will come up with what if scenarios to account for the possibility of god. "What if a B747 went back in time and landed in Ohio?"... "What if the Wright Brothers were time travelers?" (etc ad nauseum). Such ramblings are every bit as unevidenced and untenable as the theist's image of god.

The wright brothers made the first engine-powered plane.

Is our universe the first universe?

No, according to M theory. Not analogical.

Any possible god could have lived in, or derived our universe's design from another universe. Do I need evidence to back up this possibility?

No, not to validate agnosticism.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Dawkins points out that design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation.

Clearly false.

First off, in order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. Say for instance we found highly advanced machinery in a crater of Mars that was completely foreign to human technology, it would be easy to recognize that this is the result of some extraterrestrial agency even if you couldn't explain the origin of the extraterrestrials.

And this "argument" applies to any non-God/designer of the universe as well, as even if we discover that something besides an intelligent, personal cause created the universe, that cause would still require an explanation that we probably won't have an answer for.

The Philosopher Alvin Plantiga had the following to say on this subject matter:

Quote by: Alvin Plantiga Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors.” A first year philosophy student on our expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are.” No doubt we’d tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren’t trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life: we aren’t trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God Himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Zhavric your original statement is akin to "Nothing can be proven"...

As far as the question "does God exist?" goes, you're correct.


Neither answer can ever be proven.

[arielmessenger]

Every dad who's ever brought presents home to the kids is Santa like the poster above said. Santa Claus is my favorite saint, the best of the bunch save for maybe Saint Francis.

And there's a lot more to the story than you'll ever discover in the Christian telling of how God Most High became incorporated into Santa Claus along with His wife, Asherah, the Tree of Life as our Christmas trees and menorahs.,

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I said induction and deduction require axioms.

Oh.. my bad? And what do you plan on figuring without induction and deduction? Seriously man..

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 We define logic as valid. IE, axioms.

And we should, what else are we going to define as valid if not logic? I think you severely missed the entire point. That or you didn't try.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't mean they don't know it for certain. Lots of people go into denial about lots of things.

What..? Someone can not believe in something but also know it for certain? You make zero sense.

I can not believe in God, but also know for certain he exists?

I don't understand how you're honestly trying to argue that if a proof exists, everyone will automatically know it? Get real :]

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It is an axoim.

The axiom is an axiom... why? Just because?

That's circular.

I myswell say god is pink. Why? Just because. It proves itself. No seriously, it really does prove itself just as well as your statement does. It's using it's own authority to secure authority. It's using the statement "god is pink" to validate the statement into itself.. "god is pink."

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Destroyer Clearly false. First off, in order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don't have to have an explanation of the explanation.

Actually, it is not clearly false at all. In fact most intellectuals would disagree with you whole-heartedly. But I'm not one to throw around appeal to authority fallacies, so let's pretend I didn't say that.

Anyways, explanations DO need explanations. Aliens are often explanations to very bizarre abduction dreams or occurrences. You can't honestly say that such an explanation doesn't need more explaining.

To most atheists, saying a supernatural, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent, superman beyond our understanding that wants us to kill in his name is even more absurd than aliens.. and yes, it DOES need explanation.

It's OK not to know everything. As soon as you start filling in the blanks with crack-pot theories and magical beings, you've given up on the wonder and mystery of this world. I can't tell you how strange it sounds for someone to tell me that scientists are not certain about everything while they are.. because their god answers all questions for them. Actually, your god has not answered all questions for you. You now have a even bigger problem in your hands.. First, you criticize the immense complexity of life and the universe, and claim it MUST be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, conscious thinking supernatural being.. but you then ignore that if OUR current empirical world is so gosh-darn complex and impossible.. then a mind so intelligent and powerful as a god's must be infinitely more impossible than ours. You claim that the universe could not have popped out of no where, but then, neither could your god. You then claim your god has always existed, but then, so could the universe. You aren't solving any problems by introducing magical beings into your gaps of knowledge. You only introduce more problems while feeling strangely satisfied by the fact that your first problems have now been solved, or rather, covered.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Actually, it is not clearly false at all. In fact most intellectuals would disagree with you whole-heartedly. But I'm not one to throw around appeal to authority fallacies, so let's pretend I didn't say that.

I don't think so...and I think the reason you didn't want to get into this is because you know you can't support this statement. Look, let's face it, Dawkins' book exposes him as a rank amateur when it comes to philosophical reasoning. Even intellectuals of the atheist persuasion are coming out against him -- H. Allen Orr, Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse have all talked about how horrible Dawkins' "arguments" are in the book...but this is beside the point...

Anyways, explanations DO need explanations.

Oh, I agree. Maybe you misunderstood me. I agree that explanations need explanations, I just disagree that you have to know the explanation of an explanation for a particular explanation to be valid. That was the purpose of the alien analogy - we wouldn't have to know a thing about the extraterrestrials to know that some extraterrestrial agency put the machinery there. Now, we should explore and try to discover things about the extraterrestrials, but not currently knowing anything about them doesn't exclude them from being the most likely explanation of the machinery.

Aliens are often explanations to very bizarre abduction dreams or occurrences. You can't honestly say that such an explanation doesn't need more explaining.

You're reading too much into the alien analogy - I only used them as an explanation of machinery found on mars. Let's use another analogy:

Say we are walking along the beach and see a 6ft tall, very elaborate sand castle. Now, it would be very easy to recognize that this was the result of some sand sculptor or someone who really knew how to make sand castles...even if we knew nothing about the sculptor, where he/she came from, what his/her name was, what he/she looked like etc. So here we can clearly see that we don't have to have an explanation for the explanation or know the origin of the explanation in order to determine the cause of the sand castle.

In the same sense, we don't have to know the origin of God, in order to determine if God made the universe. To be certain, we should seek both scientifically and philosophically to answer the question of "where God came from", but not knowing (which is not the case anyway) doesn't mean He couldn't have created the universe. (To be clear, I'm not arguing for the existence of God here, but rather against an argument against the existence of God - namely Zhavric's "we don't know where God came from, so he can't exist" argument)

In fact, you'll also notice that I pointed out that this applies to any non-God hypothesis to the origin of the universe as well:

Quote by: Destroyer And this "argument" applies to any non-God/designer of the universe as well, as even if we discover that something besides an intelligent, personal cause created the universe, that cause would still require an explanation that we probably won't have an answer for.

Quote by: Lullaby It's OK not to know everything.

Agreed! And that's my exact position here. It is ZHAVRIC that demands we know everything here. I'm saying that not knowing the cause of God is no determiner to whether God did indeed create the universe. We can seek philosophically to determine His cause, but not knowing doesn't preclude him from creating the universe...and remember, Zhav's argument applies to ALL hypothesis' about the origin of the universe and renders them ALL invalid...which is the reason I reject this silly reasoning.

I think you've just misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The rest of your post really had nothing to do with the point I brought up, so I'll leave it to others to refute it as I just wanted to refute the silly notion that not knowing the explanation of an explanation automatically renders the explanation invalid. Imagine if Darwin had used this logic before refining the ToE-- "I think species evolved, but this explains precisely nothing because I don't know how they evolved, by what mechanisms they evolved etc." Zhavric's "argument" puts an end to all scientific and philosophical inquiry.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Destroyer I don't think so...and I think the reason you didn't want to get into this is because you know you can't support this statement. Look, let's face it, Dawkins' book exposes him as a rank amateur when it comes to philosophical reasoning. Even people "intellectuals" of the atheist persuasion are coming out against him -- H. Allen Orr, Michael Shermer and Michael Ruse have all talked about how horrible Dawkins' "arguments" are in the book...but this is beside the point...

Just about every single atheist in the world would agree that the God "theory" needs explanation. Even a ton of theists agree with that.

Explanations do need explanations.

That's what my entire post was about. I honestly didn't have time to read the rest of your post.. but if you agree with me, then cools :] But I'll be reading your post again and I have a feeling I won't agree with you.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer And what do you plan on figuring without induction and deduction?

Induction and deduction are great tools.

They don't work without something to build on or take from, respectively.

A wrench does nothing without a bolt to apply torque to.

what else are we going to define as valid if not logic?

We can define anything we want as valid.

Someone can not believe in something but also know it for certain?

Sure.

A cancer patient can know for certain that they will die in the next 6 months, yet they don't believe it.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The axiom is an axiom... why?

Because we say so.

That's the point.


You have to start with something to build on in any logical system.

I myswell say god is pink. Why? Just because.

You may do that.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Induction and deduction are great tools. They don't work without something to build on or take from, respectively. A wrench does nothing without a bolt to apply torque to.

Thank you. You've proven my point.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 We can define anything we want as valid.

Well here we have a problem. I was not aware you would be defining anything you want as valid. I can't debate with someone like that.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Sure. A cancer patient can know for certain that they will die in the next 6 months, yet they don't believe it.

You've turned it around again. You said if a proof exists, everyone will know it. That's completely absurd because you've skipped the part where they have to believe it in the first place.. you came up with a few bizarre explanations and now you're trying to reword it.

No, with your original wording in mind.. it would be like saying a doctor could diagnose a patient with cancer, and well.. prove that the patient has cancer, and the patient.. by some wild law of physics you make it seem, will automatically know the proof and believe it. That's BS. It's possible in that example, sure, but you first said EVERYONE??? would know the truth if there exists a proof? That's just not right.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Because we say so. That's the point.

That's a problem.. you don't understand my argument, apparently.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You have to start with something to build on in any logical system.

Yes.. gosh, this would be so much easier if you addressed my argument. I clearly acknowledged this but my points go one step further.. please read again.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You may do that.

-sigh-

Ok...