If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater.

This is not a reasonable stance, and I think that it's a stance that you wouldn't take in other, more mundane aspects of life. Let me rephrase:

"I'm not asserting absolute certainly [that my house is haunted with ghosts.] I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as [to what's making those noises I hear in my attic] so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater."

Would you find that a reasonable position?

In another thread remez and I had an exchange about reasonable vs absolute. Judging from his post here it obviously found some fertile ground.

 

[steve_bank]

I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater.

Ro me that is fine as a belief, but it is not a proof. There is a Native American myth that the horse came from a sprit as a gift, but we know it came from Europe. Still fine as a cultural myth.

In physics there is a principle that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, only the form changes. So far there are no manifest exceptions. Philosophically it means something can not come from or go to nothing .

Given the preponderance of experimental data supporting the hypothesis then I believe the unverse has no end or beginning. No need for a creator.

While not provable there is a counter argument actually based in science.

 

[remez]

So far, it's all the evidence i have ever seen, offered for one or another deity, for the possibility of deities, or for the certainty of creationism (thus a deity). In my experience they all suffer from one or both of those two fatal errors.

Ok, but….I repeat…..

Like Rhea you are giving me your assessment of some unmentioned evidence. I can’t determine if your assessment of that evidence is reasonable if you don’t provide the evidence.

But why would i offer fstal evidence for a god i do not believe in?

I didn’t ask you to. You invited yourself into my challenge to Rhea’s challenge. I offered Rhea the challenge to provide evidence and reason that Rhea had been given for God’s existence alongside of her reasons for rejection that evidence and reasoning. So that we could discuss which was more reasonable. Because Rhea, like you, just assumed that her reasons prevails, end of discussion.
and
Be fair. In my last post I agreed you were reasonable for rejecting the evidence that was provided to you by Dr. Dino. I was fair.

It would actually make more sense for you to offer some evidence you find convincing, and see if, for once, it stands up to scrutiny.

But then, you'll attack my understanding of the evidence that was offered, and move the argument one remove away from my point. And you will restate my point but erroneously, reducing the exchange to a spiral of me attempting to correct your missatating of my position, my argument, or my point, spiraling further and further from your god, or your evidence for it, as usual.

It's your thing.

Thank you. I’m flattered. Same back at you for sure.

For example, this thread asks about WHY YOU (THEISTS) NEED EVIDENCE, and you've changed it to arguing about the evidence.

So, meh.

I got bored of sb’s same ole question. Sorry. I have addressed it in all three of his identical threads here in this forum. For real, three times. Rhea was by far more interesting…..and hear this….it was Rhea that asked WHY. Rhea was very clear about that. Follow what is going on if you are going to jump in and start slinging baseless accusations.

 

[remez]

I agree that the idea of a god is a philosophical argument... Those who try to argue god on a scientific, evidence based basis are out of their element.

Same for those that assert science has disproven God. However science can support the premise that the universe began to exist. Which supplies support that God exists.

Then, philosophy does not find truths but presents arguments that other philosophers dispute.

Note your statement is philosophical. So let me dispute that. A major branch of philosophy is epistemology. How we know what we know. Our debate here is foundationally epistemic. Think about this…..science itself is a philosophical construct constructed to discover natural explanations of our reality. Science is based on philosophy. Very good philosophy.

Philosophically we are trying to determine is whose explanation of this reality is the better fit. Yours or mine. We will each refer to science to support our case. This is not a conflict between theism and science. No way. It is a conflict between theism and atheism. Thus the question is….. Which worldview is better supported by the science? You don’t just get to assume the science is on your side. You have to make a case for that.

Your assumption of a first cause (god) may have some support from some philosophers but certainly not all...

You have provided no reasoning to support your assertion that God is assumed. But I concur that not all philosophers agree. Thus some are more reasonable than others. But you and I both already knew that.

there is certainly no evidence that I know of.

No evidence or you did not find the evidence compelling. The KCA (that seems to be your focus) is sound and valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. So your task is to show me where the premises are wrong or where the reasoning is in error.

Belief in a god is faith and faith is belief without evidence.

Well that kind of faith wasn’t good enough for me. Let’s get past this and have a grown up discussion. Let’s go with I belief/trust/am convinced that God exists. All of those terms infer that I have evidence and reasoning for my belief. Deal with that instead of trying to hide behind your hand waving dismissal of my evidence and reasoning with your “faith” issues. I can address your error in this faith thing but really there is no reason to here. I’m here and I’m giving you evidence and reasoning for what I believe. Are you just going to ignore the evidence before you?

Thankfully you did not……..

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not.

Not with absolute certainty. But philosophy and science certainly support a past finite universe far more than an infinite one. You have seen the evidence I have provided many times. You cannot reasonably argue that a past infinite universe is more reasonable. Not even close. We are to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt. Cosmologist (atheists) are even writing books about their theories of how it happened naturally. They have failed miserably. But their efforts do add support the ever strengthening paradigm of a universe from nothing. At this point you would have to be using Dawkins definition of faith to consider a past eternal universe. His definition was a belief held against the evidence.

We don't know the exact mechanism of how life begin.

No we don’t scientifically. But what are you inferring was the argument there?

We don't know why a loved one died.

Again I agree in most cases. But how is that used as an argument for God? I can’t assume your argument. What are you looking for?

We don't know how that stain on the wall came to resemble the Virgin Mary or a burnt mark on a grilled cheese sandwich looks somewhat like Jesus.

If anyone offered you that as evidence for God then you would be unreasonable to believe it. I’m on your side with that one.

There is a hell of a lot that we know we don't know. Probably much more that we don't yet know that we don't know.

I agree.

A good start but you are again assuming your conclusion that there was a first cause (god).

Again empty assertion. The argument reasons and concludes that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal first cause. Not assumed. To you it may not be compelling, but that doesn’t render God assumed on the part of the theist.

Even though it is a popular idea among some in science, it is a minority idea.

Provide some evidence that the majority oppose the SBBM.

If it did began, was it a rebound from a previous collapse,.

Fails scientifically. Insufficient mass for gravity to reverse expansion. Entropy is conserved thus you do not avoid a beginning. Basic stuff. It’s only a fantasy to avoid a beginning. Name a oscillation model still being espoused today. Simply naming an opposing model does not make your case. It needs to be rational.

a quantum fluctuation, etc

They all fail but which one do you want me to address. Your generality here suggests your belief in authority speculations as credible alternatives. Show me you can hang and present one that is your candidate as most credible.

To take that 'we don't know' and assume it means evidence for or proof of GOD is exactly what is meant by gotg.

Your absolute certainty line of reasoning is flawed.

This is what you are really saying “because skepticalbip doesn’t absolutely know for certain” it means remez assuming. Very flawed.

I’m fine leaving it right there vs what you presented thus far. You have nothing to support your assertions other than your abuse of absolute certainty. It’s arbitrary and inconsistent and completely irrational. A very weak attempt to avoid any serious reasoning. Just as useless as saying faith means no evidence required.

 

[remez]

I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater.

This is not a reasonable stance, and I think that it's a stance that you wouldn't take in other, more mundane aspects of life. Let me rephrase:

"I'm not asserting absolute certainly [that my house is haunted with ghosts.] I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as [to what's making those noises I hear in my attic] so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater."

Would you find that a reasonable position?

Doesn’t work because there are many other possibilities that are far more plausible. In this context for me it’s a bumper crop of haunting chipmunks.
Try again?

Seriously try again....you'll see.
Context matters.

 

[steve_bank]

Chipmunks or winged angels, six of one half a dozen the other.

 

[skepticalbip]

I’m not asserting absolute certainly. I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as the first cause so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater.

This is not a reasonable stance, and I think that it's a stance that you wouldn't take in other, more mundane aspects of life. Let me rephrase:

"I'm not asserting absolute certainly [that my house is haunted with ghosts.] I’m asserting I have seen nothing more reasonable as [to what's making those noises I hear in my attic] so I hold it to be a justified belief absent any reasonable defeater."

Would you find that a reasonable position?

Doesn’t work because there are many other possibilities that are far more plausible.

So you do understand (and agree with) the criticism of your assertion. Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities. Just as (in your case) only someone who believes in and is obsessed with god would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities.

As was pointed out in the question, you wouldn't accept the reasoning of someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities."
"Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with God would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities."

WTAF???

I'm someone believes in and is obsessed with God and I am able to imagine (or accept) other possibilities.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities."
"Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with God would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities."

WTAF???

I'm someone believes in and is obsessed with God and I am able to imagine (or accept) other possibilities.

Then you agree that the assertion by remez was unreasonable just as is the assertion by a true believer in ghosts that the noise in the attic is a ghost unless you can 'prove' to them it wasn't?

 

[remez]

Doesn’t work because there are many other possibilities that are far more plausible.

So you do understand (and agree with) the criticism of your assertion. Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities. Just as (in your case) only someone who believes in and is obsessed with god would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities.

As was pointed out in the question, you wouldn't accept the reasoning of someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts.

Completely with Lion on that.

I don’t think he reasoned that….. “unable to imagine other possibilities”. That was something you dreamed up.
In my case. I can imagine an oscillating universe model. I just don’t find it as reasonable even though I don’t know with absolute certainty that God exists as the first cause.

As a matter of fact……
I even had a skeptic recently present that as a defeater of the KCA post 44 above. Not only did I conceive of such a model, I revealed its total irrationality. Same skeptic told me that a quantum model renders the universe eternal. Of course he did not support it and was challenged to do so. Realizing that his appeal to an authority on that one failed as well. He chose not to defend any of his assertions. Yet this skeptic still believes he defeated the KCA just like abaddon and T.G.G. Moogly.

Earlier I visited to the other thread by sb where another atheist cuddle huddle was occurring with regard to what he called the causal argument. I used the atheist assertion only approach back on them. I simply asserted a straw man. Thus I’m right and he is wrong. It was far easier that way. Thanks skep. Let’s see how it goes. What do you predict?

 

[steve_bank]

Doesn’t work because there are many other possibilities that are far more plausible.

So you do understand (and agree with) the criticism of your assertion. Only someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities. Just as (in your case) only someone who believes in and is obsessed with god would be unable to imagine (or accept) any other possibilities.

As was pointed out in the question, you wouldn't accept the reasoning of someone who believes in and is obsessed with ghosts.

Completely with Lion on that.

I don’t think he reasoned that….. “unable to imagine other possibilities”. That was something you dreamed up.
In my case. I can imagine an oscillating universe model. I just don’t find it as reasonable even though I don’t know with absolute certainty that God exists as the first cause.

As a matter of fact……
I even had a skeptic recently present that as a defeater of the KCA post 44 above. Not only did I conceive of such a model, I revealed its total irrationality. Same skeptic told me that a quantum model renders the universe eternal. Of course he did not support it and was challenged to do so. Realizing that his appeal to an authority on that one failed as well. He chose not to defend any of his assertions. Yet this skeptic still believes he defeated the KCA just like abaddon and T.G.G. Moogly.

Earlier I visited to the other thread by sb where another atheist cuddle huddle was occurring with regard to what he called the causal argument. I used the atheist assertion only approach back on them. I simply asserted a straw man. Thus I’m right and he is wrong. It was far easier that way. Thanks skep. Let’s see how it goes. What do you predict?

Exciting, isn't it.

 

[atrib]

....
The first case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence of lack of knowledge or understanding (god of the gaps).......

The first cause is philosophical argument that is supported by philosophy and science.

The first cause argument is NOT supported by science. In fact, the first cause argument is merely an argument from ignorance, with giant helpings of self-serving speculation piled on top. The premises supporting the argument are not based on our scientific understanding of the universe, and many are untestable. And, even if all the premises of the argument, stated and unstated (and most remain unstated for self-serving reasons), were true, the conclusion would still not lead to a god or a committee of gods.

Don't believe me? Post your preferred version of the argument in its full form and I will explain why the argument is broken, premise by premise. Or do a little research online and figure it out for yourself and avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong in public again.

 

[remez]

....
The first case is not evidence of a god... It is evidence of lack of knowledge or understanding (god of the gaps).......

The first cause is philosophical argument that is supported by philosophy and science.

The first cause argument is NOT supported by science. In fact, the first cause argument is merely an argument from ignorance, with giant helpings of self-serving speculation piled on top. The premises supporting the argument are not based on our scientific understanding of the universe, and many are untestable. And, even if all the premises of the argument, stated and unstated (and most remain unstated for self-serving reasons), were true, the conclusion would still not lead to a god or a committee of gods.

Don't believe me? Post your preferred version of the argument in its full form and I will explain why the argument is broken, premise by premise. Or do a little research online and figure it out for yourself and avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong in public again.

I'm still here.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...f-Reasoning-Scientific-Method-vs-Faith/page21
post 210

You ran away after throwing a pile load of useless counters at the KCA
You really want to try again?
If so…………….join us now over here. Some of the ole gang is back.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...st-another-Religious-Myth&p=810618#post810618

 

[Rhea]

Remez has expressed an interest in why his reply was not worth answering.

Just for the record, when other atheists ask this same question, we can be genuinely interested in the answer because the thing we’re wondering is not whether there’s a god, (we’re convinced there is not, and the theist never has any new evidence) but rather the thing we’re wondering is HOW you believe it. How do you take a thing that that is objectively false and decide to believe it. So we’re curious, how your process of convincing yourself goes - what that looks like.

How can you be asking “how” we believe what we do
and
at the same time assert that no NEW evidence has been provided?

Easy. I am fascinated by how you hold onto a position that has no support, and further, how you keep expressing that belief with the same old arguments that 10,000,000 other Christians asserted, had rebutted, and then reasserted without changing, but with obviously recognizing that it’s been rebutted based on their moving on to a new audience.

I’ve heard all of the christian arguments. They are not convincing at all. You all never have anything new to say, even though you argue that you have a supernatural being on your side.

It’s all so, human.. You’d think if you had a god she could maybe help her people with explaining her, yanno?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you.

No, it “implies” it.
Implication is what you do when you project. Inference is what I do when I receive. The only way to use “infers” correctly is with a pronoun in front of it.

The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.

I don’t reject anything. How you think is how you think. It’s fascinating. You want to believe a storry and poof! you believe it. Fascinating to me. It doesn’t compute, it is not at all what convinces me. But clearly it convinces you, I believe you when you say that you are convinced your “god” exists. I totlaly believe that you believe it. And that you never need evidence.

By the way, you never did say “HOW” you think, you only said WHAT you think. (You dodged the question)

So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

Well, since I didn’t reject your claims for what convinces you of something that isn’t true, I have no issue. You believe because you want to, right? You didn’t give any other reasons for your belief.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

Again, since I never “rejected” the reasons you gave (well, didnt give) for how you convinced yourself, your question does not make any snese. I shall now ponder what makes you okay with that, i.e. how you are okay with that.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

We weren’t talking about whether I had certainty that a god (your god?) doesn’t exist. We were talking about HOW you became convinced that one does.

 

[atrib]

The first cause argument is NOT supported by science. In fact, the first cause argument is merely an argument from ignorance, with giant helpings of self-serving speculation piled on top. The premises supporting the argument are not based on our scientific understanding of the universe, and many are untestable. And, even if all the premises of the argument, stated and unstated (and most remain unstated for self-serving reasons), were true, the conclusion would still not lead to a god or a committee of gods.

Don't believe me? Post your preferred version of the argument in its full form and I will explain why the argument is broken, premise by premise. Or do a little research online and figure it out for yourself and avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong in public again.

I'm still here.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...f-Reasoning-Scientific-Method-vs-Faith/page21
post 210

You ran away after throwing a pile load of useless counters at the KCA
You really want to try again?
If so…………….join us now over here. Some of the ole gang is back.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...st-another-Religious-Myth&p=810618#post810618

State the argument in your preferred form, and we will deal with the premises one by one. I don't want to waste my time dealing with the bullshit you usually resort to, like misrepresenting other people's arguments, over and over and over, making assertions and then running away when you get called out on it, and so on. If you like I can post links where you have engaged in this sort of behavior with me before.

For this to be meaningful and not a waste of time, I need for you to agree not to resort to such behavior. If you agree with these groundrules, state your argument along with the underlying premises, and we will go through them one by one.

 

[remez]

If you like I can post links where you have engaged in this sort of behavior with me before.

You can produce no such evidence in regards the context of God’s existence. Ironically I did present such evidence of you in my last post. Still waiting. I went on for pages after your exit.

I don't want to waste my time dealing with the bullshit you usually resort to, like misrepresenting other people's arguments, over and over and over, making assertions

That is you misrepresenting how the reasoning process works. When I point out the error in your reasoning. You don’t just get to claim I’m misrepresenting you. That is the excuse you use to run away rather than deal with what I offered against your reasoning. If you actually felt I was misrepresenting your reasoning, then you have the burden to actually show me where I have done so.
And remember
Intentional Misrepresentation is different from accidental misinterpreting.
So as evidence I’m not running away……….
Produce your evidence where I ran away or misrepresented you.

 

[remez]

Remez has expressed an interest in why his reply was not worth answering.


Easy. I am fascinated by how you hold onto a position that has no support, and further, how you keep expressing that belief with the same old arguments that 10,000,000 other Christians asserted, had rebutted, and then reasserted without changing, but with obviously recognizing that it’s been rebutted based on their moving on to a new audience.

I’ve heard all of the christian arguments. They are not convincing at all. You all never have anything new to say, even though you argue that you have a supernatural being on your side.

It’s all so, human.. You’d think if you had a god she could maybe help her people with explaining her, yanno?

Because that infers that evidence and reason has been provided to you.

No, it “implies” it.
Implication is what you do when you project. Inference is what I do when I receive. The only way to use “infers” correctly is with a pronoun in front of it.

The “how” has been provided to you. And you rejected it.

I don’t reject anything. How you think is how you think. It’s fascinating. You want to believe a storry and poof! you believe it. Fascinating to me. It doesn’t compute, it is not at all what convinces me. But clearly it convinces you, I believe you when you say that you are convinced your “god” exists. I totlaly believe that you believe it. And that you never need evidence.

By the way, you never did say “HOW” you think, you only said WHAT you think. (You dodged the question)

So
The issue becomes this….were your reasons for rejection as good as the reason provided.

Well, since I didn’t reject your claims for what convinces you of something that isn’t true, I have no issue. You believe because you want to, right? You didn’t give any other reasons for your belief.

I can’t reason whether you were reasonable or not because I don’t know what evidence and reason you rejected and if your reasons were any good.

Again, since I never “rejected” the reasons you gave (well, didnt give) for how you convinced yourself, your question does not make any snese. I shall now ponder what makes you okay with that, i.e. how you are okay with that.

All I call reason is that your certainty that God does not exist is not true just because you reason it is. How do I know you are being reasonable?

We weren’t talking about whether I had certainty that a god (your god?) doesn’t exist. We were talking about HOW you became convinced that one does.

Thanks for trying. You presented nothing "NEW" save more insults. I was looking for an argument or two that you claimed to have heard and the reasoning why you rejected it. All you did was repeat yourself. Others in this thread did so, and I agreed with them in some cases concluding poor reasoning on behalf of the theist. Thus I was fair.

Just for the record …..you were starting at a demonstrative pronoun …”that” and missed it.

Now to your concerns with GTR in the other thread. I addressed it with Moogly in my last post to him. If you have cause to descent please do so. I'll now address any concerns you have with that there.

 

[steve_bank]

It is like moths drawn to a flame. Theists can not resist the arguments. Defending god, who is all powerful to begin, is what they do.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

STOP ASKING.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is like moths drawn to a flame. Theists can not resist the arguments. Defending god, who is all powerful to begin, is what they do.

"I have met my god, and it is me."