Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

I'd like to throw out a new stance to argue from; GOD exists. Prove to me that he doesn't.

Even asking that question would immediately cost you a loss in any actual serious debate.

You can not prove a negative. Thus I can not prove that god does not exist. The burden of proof in any logical discussion falls upon the supposer. Thus, you must prove that God does exist. The burden of proof is upon you.

[Demetrius]

That is as hard of a sell as proving that he does exist.

That is actually all I wanted out of that whole thing.

I feel, however, that I must mention that turning the argument as you did doesn't work with the stance I put forth, as lack of evidence doesn't prove a lack of existence...

HE said that he would not prove his existence, because proof denies faith

Assuming GOD exists, finding evidence of HIS existence would in fact be evidence contrary to HIS stated nature, and therefor his existence. My point is again, show me evidence that he does not exist.

((Pope, this last bit wasn't aimed at you, as I feel you have a fairly reasoned set of principles and beliefs.))

EDIT @ Krylo:

That is my point:

You can not prove a negative. Thus I can not prove that god does not exist.

People who lose sight of that basic fact and begin speaking as if their stance was proven, especially in a subject such as this, bother me, and my point was the accession that you and Pope gave.

[Sithdarth]

Assuming GOD exists, finding evidence of HIS existence would in fact be evidence contrary to HIS stated nature, and therefor his existence. My point is again, show me evidence that he does not exist.

If this is true then god's throat just got cut with Occam's Razor. Either there is some indirect evidence that there is a god or he can be edited out with Occam's Razor without having to worry about if he really exists or not. In fact, that statement you just made says that all the evidence of intelligent design is proof god doesn't exist because its indirect evidence of his existence which is contrary to his existence.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

I'd like to throw out a new stance to argue from; GOD exists. Prove to me that he doesn't.

Spare me any silly jabs you would have at supposing that this is true and prove to me that it is not.

The real silly thing about this argument is that it's a fallacy waiting to happen. You'd arrive at one if it were even possible to derive God doesn't exist from the one assumption that God exists.

Plus, I could no doubt claim some variant of an appeal to ignorance fallacy on your part, because the burden of proof is generally on YOU to show that something is true, not on us to be forced to disprove it.

A definition of 'GOD' might be good, but I'll just assume attributes of God, because that's what we're doing here anyway, right?

But I'll give my take anyway. Assuming God exists.

Given every possible observation I can make within reality (and I define reality as the observable universe, so observation outside of reality is impossible - I also use universe and reality interchangably), I have no reason to consider the God variable in any of them. The universe, as far as I have observed it, seems self-contained and its phenomena can be rationally explained.

While not all phenomena in the universe can be rationally explained right now, we (humanity) have successfully and rather systematically explained phenomena with gradually increasing complexity. Phenomena once widely accepted as the direct action of God have been shown to be not the direct action of God. God had no part in any observable events in the universe, that we've plausibly recorded, observed, or can record or observe to date.

If God has no effect on the events of the universe/reality, I could draw a bunch of possible conclusions:
a) God doesn't exist
b) God does exist, but is some kind of null variable with regards to our reality. In other words, God doesn't exist. Occam's Razor and such.
c) God is the universe? In which case everything is God, and if that's the case, absolutely everything has this God attribute. This attribute can then be ignored entirely, because it doesn't differentiate anything from anything.

Now, there's lots of potential problems with all of that above, but I think a lot of that stems from the fact that the initial argument is a clusterfuck to begin with. I have no agreed upon definition of God or its attributes. White-bearded, wind-blown robed figure that starts all sentences with "Let there be..." or an advanced alien being with technological capabilities beyond even our wildest imaginations? Both God's would satisfy requirements for doing the deeds they have, so the religious claimed, done (that we haven't yet disproven with rational observation); "do-whatever-I-want-magic" and "do-whatever-I-want-technology."

Even if no conclusion is drawn, the plausability of God seems sharply reduced. In which case I would challenge that the initial assumption is faulty, and the false be shown to be true.

This will, of course, be impossible to do because no logical argument can prove the existence of God and no observable traits could show any assumptions used in said logical argument to be true.

Annnd, then we reach a dead end of sorts. But then, discussing the existence or nonexistence of God will always lead to a dead end, with the knowledge we have right now. Safe conclusions vary from "Let's all believe what we want to believe to feel warm and fuzzy, while not forcing our beliefs on others" to "I preferred the discussion on the positive moral aspects of religions."

[Demetrius]

I apologize for the weakness of my statement, it was not meant as an actual argument but was intended to get people to look at how proving or disproving something of this sort is near on impossible, we reach Azisien's "dead end." My point is, again, that speaking as though either stance is proven or provable (there are proofs both ways, and refutations either way) is foolhardy, for the reasons you gave above.

[Elminster_Amaur]

The universe, as far as I have observed it, seems self-contained and its phenomena can be rationally explained.

If this statement is true, then there is no reason to HAVE a creation/beginning theory of Everything. If the Universe is self-contained, then there is no reason for there to be a beginning at all. In fact, I thought (Sith can correct me if I'm wrong on this) that the currently accepted theory on Everything was the M theory, since String doesn't work without that last dimension (a unifying String with five different Strings? Not very unifying). And so, if M theory is the most acceptable beginning theory of the Universe, then the Universe is not self-contained. Not that I think very highly of M theory, it's just that even scientists are pretty sure that our Universe can interact with things outside it, and they think that that is what caused the beginning.

[Sithdarth]

You've fallen into a semantics trap because Azisien's definition of universe would include the M-brane which always existed and therefore by that definition there was no beginning and the universe is self contained.

[Elminster_Amaur]

I see. But then, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the multiverse is self-contained and has always existed?

[Sithdarth]

If you were going for popular usage yes. But Azisien specifically defined the universe in the statement which is perfectly valid as language isn't an absolute and words can have different meanings and be redefined. That is as long as everyone agrees on it. You could take issue with the word usage but not the actual point itself.

[Elminster_Amaur]

I'm not going to argue it, but the only reason I even brought it up was because the word "Universe" threw me off.