I Believe God Exists

[AllPurposeAtheist]

So now the flower emoticon deniers come out.. tsk tsk

[La Dolce Vita]

Read through the thread now ... Ok, so basically you are convinced that a magical being/essence/force must exist because one potential other explanation doesn't sound right to you? That's a seriously horrible reasoning.

Listen, until something is proven to at least be likely there's is no honest intellectual way to genuinely believe in something. Until such a time it is best to sustain from claiming any belief. In the case of anything remotely resembling the god idea, nothing indicates this. We have no examples of a mind existing without a mind. We have nothing implicating any kind of sentient force doing anything in the universe. Believing in any such being/force is therefor silly and impossible to defend at this point in  time - regardless of whether it actually exists.

[Solitary]

Oh, go on, you silly materialist you! 

Bite me! He! He!olitary

[doorknob]

Welcome.

I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.

[Solitary]

  When you believe in things with no good reason to be true, technically that's delusional and insane.

As for why when god tells someone to do something good, people say its really god, but when god tells them to do something evil they're crazy, its called special pleading or a logical fallacy.    Solitary

[Poison Tree]

just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.

Proof for this assertion?

[DunkleSeele]

I am not convinced that we live in a material objective universe. For starters, I challenge any of you to prove that we do. What empirical evidence do you have that can prove for instance, that Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument is conclusively false and we do in fact live in a material objective reality?

There is no proof. There is no empirical evidence that supports your belief in objective materialism if you are a Materialist, and if you are an Atheist because of your Materialism, that is a problem.

The bottom line is thus: That we live in a Material Objective Universe is an unsupported assumption, no more supported than any other unsupported assumption. (such as a belief in the Christian creation myth)

I admit that if Materialism is true, then Atheism is a quite valid conclusion to come to, for if Materialism is true there is no need for any kind of "God" to exist. But the fact is, Materialism is a baseless assumption. It works, don't get me wrong, just as the Flat Earth Theory still works to this day when building a house or running on a soccer field, just as Newtonian Physics works when playing billiards or dropping fruit from buildings, but in the end, just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.

To disbelieve in all "Gods" based on "no proof", but at the same time believe that we live in a Material Objective Universe with "no proof", is a special kind of cognitive dissonance I cannot personal stomach when constructing my own world view. Maybe it is different for you all.

If you are a Materialist, then you are making a Positive Claim about reality, and it is up to you to provide evidence for your claim. The Burden of Proof applies to all positive claims, not just one's that you don't agree with.

Yup, exactly as I thought... it's "The Matrix".

[Casparov]

just like Newtonian Physics and Flat Earth Theory, Materialism is not ultimately true.

Proof for this assertion?

I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position, which you being an Atheist should be very familiar with. Whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.

There is no proof of Material Objective Universe just like there is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. That reality is made up of matter is not a presupposition as you are inclined to believe but it is a conclusion from 500 years of scientific investigation that there is no spiritual/immaterial world. Every claim of a spiritual/immaterial case has been debunked through those 5 centuries.

You are incorrect: "There is no proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist" is fine, because Santa Claus not existing does not require proof, it is a negative claim. "There is no proof of Material Objective Universe" is not fine, because the Material Objective Universe is a positive claim, and therefore requires proof. They are not the same.

After 500 years of scientific investigation the majority have concluded that we live in an objective Material universe. Yes, but without proof, and without evidence. It is an assumption that works in the same way Flat Earth Theory works when surveying land to build a house on. Unless you are going to simply make the Logical Fallacy of Appealing to Authority, the burden rests with whomever is making the claim that we live in an Objective Material Universe. And you have provided no evidence beyond this appeal to Authority.

It is quite possible as is shown by Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, that what we perceive as "material" is actually "immaterial" images and sensations, the apparent materiality a mere illusion. If you believe that all other explanations for our perceptions are false and Materialism is the definite answer, then you are required to present proof, because that is a positive claim about reality.

And I meant that. Kick a boulder in your street shoes. You will experience pain. You will do physical damage to your foot. The pain will be very real to you. If you take painkillers the pain will lessen but will return after a time. You will experience the physical sensation and also the mental anguish of pain. the damage done to your foot will be there every time you look, but over time will heal and diminish. there will be a mark on the boulder that will be there until it is weathered or rubbed away.

the healing and loss of the mark both demonstrate the passage of time, an aspect of the material universe.

This is not A Priori, this is objectively real. Every time you kick the boulder it will be just as hard and the damage to your foot and the pain will be the same. This is reproducibility, another aspect of the material universe.

the density of the boulder will not change. Your foot will still be hurt every time you kick the boulder. this is consistency, another aspect of the material universe.

Go kick a boulder. You lose.

This is a demonstration of what is commonly known as "Naive Realism". If I kick a boulder, it hurts, and there is a mark on my shoes. Apparently this proves that we live in a Material Objective Universe.

Okay so I've had dreams before in which I experienced real pain. If I kick a boulder in a dream, it hurts. Therefore, dreams are objective material realities.

A character in in simulation, let's say, a character in Skyrim, kicks a boulder, there is mark on his shoe, the boulder doesn't budge, and the character reacts as if he is in pain and his health meter goes down a notch. This is obviously not A Priori, this is objectively real. Every time he kicks the boulder the same reaction will happen, and the same health damage will occur. The boulder will be just as hard every time he kicks it. There will be a mark on the boulder where he kicked it until it is weathered or rubbed away. The density of the boulder will not change. He will heal over time. Reproducibility is an aspect of the Material Universe, consistency is an aspect of the Material Universe, therefore, Skyrim is a Material Objective Universe. Right?

Kicking a boulder and feeling pain is not proof that we live in a Material Universe. No more than kicking a boulder in a dream and feeling pain is proof that dreams are material universes either. No more than if you were simply a brain in a vat, hooked up to a computer that is sending the exact same electrical signals through to the neural passageways in your brain to produce the exact same experience you would have when kicking a boulder. Electrical signals to your brain could easily reproduce a seemingly material reality, equipped with equal reproducibility and consistency and even the experience of pain when kicking a boulder.

That we live in a material objective universe is just one explanation of our perceptions, and it has no more proof or evidence than any of the others, it is on equal footing with Descarte's demon. Unless of course, you can actually provide some epistemological evidence or any kind of proof for your conclusion. Otherwise, at least admit it is an unsupported assumption.

When you believe in things with no good reason to be true, technically that's delusional and insane.

 As for why when god tells someone to do something good, people say its really god, but when god tells them to do something evil they're crazy, its called special pleading or a logical fallacy.

I couldn't agree more! There is no good reason to believe in Materialism, and yet most Atheists do, and then feel intellectual superior to Theists who believe in a God for no good reason. Insanity! Delusional indeed! 

And as for why Atheists can demand proof from Theists all day everyday and then when asked for proof of their own world view think that they are somehow exempt from the Burden of Proof, also Special Pleading, also Logical Fallacy.

[Casparov]

Burden of proof shifting combined with Betcha Can't Prove A Negative.

Obviously you agree that when a positive claim is made, whoever is making that claim, has a burden of proof, right? So what seems to be the problem? Do you not agree that asserting that we exist in a Material Objective Universe is a positive claim? Then why not just provide the proof?

I am not asking you to Prove a Negative, I'm just asking you to Prove a Positive. 

If materialism (the idea that all things are composed of matter - that there is nothing that exists besides physical things) were true, then supernatural entities do not exist by definition.   The frustratingly vague term, "God", is nonetheless defined as a supernatural being.  Ergo, God does not exist.

I agree 100% with what you say here. If materialism is true, then that would mean that all things are composed of matter, and that nothing exists besides physical things. If God is a non-physical immaterial thing, then that would mean that God does not exist! Yes totally! I agree with you!

Now all you have left to do.... is prove that Materialism is true!

P.S. if Materialism were true, not only god, but consciousness would not exist either.

[Casparov]

Welcome.

I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.

Thank you. I didn't expect the debate to go down in this thread specifically, as I was only introducing myself and building up my posts so I can create threads elsewhere. I am hoping to be able to debate someone One-on-One in the debates section. Do you know of anyone who would be up to the challenge on this forum?

I can tell that Me vs The Entire Atheist Forum in this thread is going to get out of hand fairly quickly...

[SGOS]

Welcome.

I'm interested in seeing a debate go down. Good luck.

You actually trying to follow this??

[Poison Tree]

I have not made an assertion. What you quoted, is a negative position,

"but in the end[snip] Materialism is not ultimately true" most certainly IS an assertion. You could have simply stated that Materialism has not been proven, but you didn't. You said it was not true.

[aitm]

a grand exercise in bullshittery

[Hydra009]

I am not asking you to Prove a Negative, I'm just asking you to Prove a Positive. 

I agree 100% with what you say here. If materialism is true, then that would mean that all things are composed of matter, and that nothing exists besides physical things. If God is a non-physical immaterial thing, then that would mean that God does not exist! Yes totally! I agree with you!

Now all you have left to do.... is prove that Materialism is true!

This is you (ShockOfGod).  You could've been anything.  But this is what you chose.  May IPU have mercy on your soul.

I'm assuming (probably incorrectly) that this is a sincere challenge and you're simply spectacularly ignorant in a couple different ways.  So I'm going to waste a minute or two explaining to you how atheism is not actually a positive claim.  Both theists and atheists accept the existence of the natural world.  That's not contested for obvious reasons.  Theists go one step further and assert the existence of a God, which naturally, atheists don't accept.  Take a wild guess who the burden of proof is on.  If you said the atheist, then you're wrong.

P.S. if Materialism were true, not only god, but consciousness would not exist either.

So, either God and consciousness exist or both God and consciousness don't exist??  (Someone call the police, I think there's a hostage situation)

Btw, this is a false dilemma since obviously, there's no reason to suppose that consciousness couldn't exist without a God.

Remember what I said earlier?  Well, this is one of the fallacies I predicted I'd find.  So, I'm not impressed.  I'm not even annoyed by you.  Your arguments are rubbish that we've all heard before and will quickly be quickly forgotten.

[josephpalazzo]

After 500 years of scientific investigation the majority have concluded that we live in an objective Material universe. Yes, but without proof, and without evidence. It is an assumption that works in the same way Flat Earth Theory works when surveying land to build a house on. Unless you are going to simply make the Logical Fallacy of Appealing to Authority, the burden rests with whomever is making the claim that we live in an Objective Material Universe. And you have provided no evidence beyond this appeal to Authority.

Perhaps you should buy yourself a dictionary: a conclusion is not an assumption.

Secondly, if you claim that the spiritual/immaterial world exists, YOU have the burden of proof. Good luck, as you will need it.