On the existence of God

>>9699115
>cont.

Now, as you all can see, science cannot determine through the scientific method an entity which exists outside the physical universe, outside dimensions, outside the natural forces.

So, we must resort to personal, more subjective proof.
Numerous individuals have experienced profound mystical states they attribute to God and have written about such phenomena. Furthermore, the evidence of miracles recorded at the hands of Godmen, prophets, and so on act as proofs for the existence of God.

So, for theists v. atheists, we have two opposing factions arguing over truth. Theists, though, accept the proofs presented to them as viable proofs of God. Theists have, to the best of their abilities, given proof of God, physical evidence notwithstanding, as God is beyond quantification, He simply exists outside the universe, outside space and time.

My question is that atheists have rejected numerous proofs accepted widely by theists. Yet they claim the burden of proof is on the head of theists. Why?

Theists are content with the proof for God’s existence. The absence of God is the presence of void. So, theists argue for the presence of a void, as the universe began from nothing, with the big bang. And if it was created by nothing as well, as the atheists argue, what exists outside the universe is a void.

Why is there no proof on the head of atheists to prove that there’s a void? Nothing created something out of nothing.
The last “proof” came 1400 years ago in the form of Islamic scripture, affirming God’s existence. Yet atheists claim He does not exist.

So, /lit/, my argument stands before you. Why are theists still taken to task over God’s existence? Why aren’t atheists over the existence of a void?

Thank you.

"Openly appearing to those who look for Him with all their heart, while hiding from those who run from Him with all their heart, God governs human knowledge of His presence. He gives signs that are visible to those who search for Him, and yet invisible to those who are indifferent to Him. To those who wish to see, God gives sufficient light; to those who do not wish to see, He gives sufficient darkness."
-Blaise Pascal

>>9699166
This is beautiful.

Replace any mention of god in bible; with the words truth/honesty/love or wisdom.

>>9699176
fuck off

>>9699166
this

>>9699176
this

>>9699175
this

>>9699193
cunt

If you want to believe, that's your choice. Pretending to know or understand such things is the height of arrogance.

Evidence for existence of God/s: 0
Evidence against God/s : 0

File: with the son.jpg (52KB, 850x567px)

52KB, 850x567px

>>9699191
Check your metastory

>>9699203
There's too much wrong with this post to even begin refuting. IDK why school children respond to serious threads.

>>9699215
I assume you have some kind of evidence for either position then?

>>9699115
>>9699121
frankly I struggle with the objective nature of my own existence.
if there is truly some sort of "artifact"- some scientific fact or axiom or cosmic/subatomic event or whatever- that spelled out the existence of the supernatural I highly doubt that it would fall into our infinitesimally narrow perception of what "is", let alone be recognized at all. Our scientific method is a joke and our philosophical approach is also bound by this mote-like perception. Its as unlikely as our equally odd expectation to discover life beyond Earth resembles humanity in even the vaguest sense.
Science fiction and pop-sci in a way shaped our expectations into something even narrower- the idea that there are humans who look into space and draw conclusions with any amount of genuine conviction is laughable. Not to imply that the scientific and philosophical pursuits are anything less than noble, I have a lot of admiration for those individuals.

The only thing you need to be focused on with that level of conviction is personal hygiene and being nicer to your mom.

>>9699261
OP here, thanks for your response. So, are you a proponent of absurdism then? That's what I infer from your response.

>>9699256
>doesn't read op
>shitposts either way
>sets up non sequitur argument

wooho!

>>9699271
Yeah. Good eye.

>>9699261
>shitting on the scientific method
I take offense to this, please expand on that.

File: ayoo.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

I sure hope not

File: pope.png (46KB, 901x589px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 901x589px

There are an infinite number of things that could exist. Meme all you want but the FSM is the perfect metaphor for this.

I honestly don't give a fuck if people do decide to believe in some kind of God because they misinterpret a mild psychosis as "spiritual enlightenment" but if they start trying to impose dumbass rules on the physical world based on that belief they better bring a proof that I am willing to accept.

>>9699115
sufficient proof for god is when a being appears and says i am god here is proof
and suddenly every human on the planet believes because that's a power your god has
other than that it's impossible and just as worthless to discuss as the existence of any other fantasy books villian

>>9699324
>One-dimensional (physical) and does not perfectly reconcile every aspect of that dimension (quantum theory/relativity conflict, principal of uncertainty, the nature of atoms, etc.)
>Scientific pursuits constantly bottom out with a "we don't know" (we don't even have a full understanding of why we sleep, how bamboo grown from the same shoot blossom simultaneously, almost all of psychology, most of biology, almost all of astronomy, what the fuck are magnets)
>we know absolute dick about space and can't even get a good look because "there's too much dust in the way"
>Ultimately bound by human perception
>science is literally always wrong until it isn't(Ptolemy's erroneous model of the solar system was taken as "scientific truth" for like 1,500 years)
The scientific method is perfect for what it is, but it's like a hammer in a tool box: good at the one thing it does, which is clarify.
It certainly isn't the be-all end-all of critical thought that pop-sci and reddit pretends it is

File: maxresdefault.jpg (39KB, 1280x720px)

39KB, 1280x720px

>>9699115
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>9699384
it may not be the perfect tool but it's for certain the best tool we have

>>9699393
That's my point. If that fact doesn't make you sit the fuck down you have some real issues regarding the size your your ego.
See >>9699203

And if your idea of God starts with anything remotely close to "guy in the sky" you don't even qualify for the discussion

Sorry if all of that sounds accusational, I'm trying not to come off as combative

>>9699426
>And if your idea of God starts with anything remotely close to "guy in the sky" you don't even qualify for the discussion
that's not my idea of it but i do wonder why do you see that as an invalid opinion
It's not like it would make a difference in the discussion of god weither it is a man in the sky or a concept starting the universe, it's more of a visualization of a concept many people are unable to see in a not humanized way.

>>9699350
I've always been partial to the cosmic elephant, an elephant that flies around the universe seeding planets with life by means of the holy water of its trunk.

The exact same arguments religious people use for the existence of their respective deities and supernatural forces can be applied to the glorious cosmic elephant.

Oh, and if you don't believe in the cosmic elephant he will use his glorious wrath to boil you in elephant shit for all eternity. Do you really want to take that chance?

>>9699452
The only version of a god they consider to be valid is their own. They will swiftly dismiss animism or Islam as merely superstitions but when it comes to their gods that's The Truth.

>>9699115
why are there so many religious fucknut threads on /lit/ at the moment

/lit/ - literature
fuck off back to /his/
they opened that containment board just for you to shriek and gibber all you want

>>9699388
*he says while dying of the cancer that God gave him*

>>9699501
that has hardly anything to do with having a visualized god after all islam has the same outlook.
But i agree someone who dismisses other gods because
>muh god is the true one and yours isn't cause reasons
isn't someone who can be reasoned with

>>9699502
We need a /rel/ board specifically for religious posting. It's shitting up /lit/ and it's shitting up /his/ by dominating threads that would otherwise be devoted to interesting history discussion.

>>9699516
not a crazy idea, for philosophy and religion

>>9699521
Separating philosophy and religion from general literature and history is a fantastic idea. Hiromoot needs to get on board instead of making more porn boards.

>>9699115
GET OFF MY BOARD

Has the problem of evil ever been answered in a satisfactory way?

>>9699362
>atheist triggered

File: suit-question-mark.jpg (44KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 450x300px

>>9699537
/seek/: mysticism and philosophy

>>9699513
lol

>>9699513
>smoked and drank for years
I wish God would stop bogarting those stogies and pass one over here

This is not a /lit/ thread.

>>9699115
>burden – to produce proof of God’s existence

NO.

There are of course the various philosophical 'proofs' for the existence of 'God', but they're ultimately nothing more than philosophical and language games with no real point.

The concept of proof is not even appropriate here in the first place. Belief in the existence of God is a matter of faith, which by its very definition does not have any bearing whatsoever on proving anything. Look at Hebrews 11:1 for an example from Christianity. The search for proof is not only ludicrous but is itself evidence of a lack of faith.

Another person's belief or unbeilef in the existence of God is not anyone's burden; it is ultimately between that person and God

>>9699215
Thinking you can comprehend the cosmos is akin to calling yourself the divine creator. The rational man accepts his size in relation to existence and the universe.

>>9700075
>Missing the point

>>9700084
Enlighten me then, if you would be so kind

>>9699115
do dogs exist?

>>9700075
Look I get what you're saying but let me just say this

see you at the other end of the spiral space cowboy ;)

>>9701740
i like you

>>9699388
didn't William of Ockham say that first

>>9701733
It's honestly cringeworthy DFW found this funny.

If he exists, he clearly doesn't give two shits about us so why care?

If He is so great to the point that He trascends our senses and we cannot understand Him at it's fullest, then you cannot assert nor deny His existence.

>>9702104
This

>>9699775

Gnosis>Faith>Proof

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence
2. The universe begins to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence

Even if this argument works, how do we know the cause of the universe is God? Since the universe includes all of space and time, the cause of the universe would have to exist beyond space and time, because it created those things. This cause would have to be immaterial, that is, not made of matter, and eternal, not exist in time. If the cause of the universe created something from nothing, then it must be extremely powerful. In fact, if it could create something from nothing, then there is nothing it could not do, and so it would be "all-powerful." Finally, this cause must be personal and can't be a mindless force because it chose to create a finite universe that is only a few billion years old. An eternal, immaterial, all-powerful, personal cause is what most people imagine when they hear the word "God."

>>9699482
>believing in God means you believe in fire-and-brimstone Christian dogma
Damn son

>>9699115
What do you mean by "God"?

>>9699545
Yin Yang, its that simple

>>9699515
Islams concept of Allah is not "man in the sky". Its actually closer to animism. Look up "Vahdetul Vucut"

1. Our universe contains particular laws of nature that allow for intelligent life to exist.
2. These laws are either necessary, were produced by chance, or were designed.
3. They are not necessary nor were they the product of chance.
4. Therefore, the laws of nature are designed.

In the past fifty years, scientists have discovered that even a slight variation in many of the laws of nature would have spelled disaster for life as we know it. Consider the cosmological constant, which represents the strength of gravity in an empty vacuum of space. Once thought to be zero, this constant is actually fine-tuned to the 122nd power--a decimal point with 121 zeroes and a one. This constant, or numerical value in a law of nature, could have been 10^122 times larger than what is necessary for life to exist. Alexander Vilenkin wrote:

"A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty . . . This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics."

For some perspective:

>10^50: The number of atoms in the planet earth
>10^80: The number of atoms in the universe
>10^122: The number of ways the strength of gravity in space could have been different and prevented life from existing

Some people say that the universe is not fine-tuned for life because so much of it is hostile to life (such as the vacuum of space). But to say the universe is fine-tuned for life does not mean it is a place where the maximum amount of life will thrive, It only means that out of all the possible universes that could exist, it is much more likely that there would have been no life at all. The fact that our universe does accommodate life, regardless of how much or how little, against such incredible odds, requires an explanation. So what explains these finely tuned laws of nature?

There's no reason to think the laws of nature must allow life to exist, since we can imagine them being different. We can rule out chance, because the odds of getting the laws of nature right are on par with winning fifty consecutive hands of poker in a row--with royal flushes every time. (Or one in 10^300, and that's a conservative estimate)

This leaves design. Like Alexander Vilenkin, the string theorist Leonard Susskind is a nonreligious scientist. But he said in his article, "Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant," that unless this constant's value was designed, "statistically miraculous events" would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we see today.

>>9703231
>1. Our universe contains particular laws of nature that allow for intelligent life to exist.
>2. These laws are either necessary, were produced by chance, or were designed.
>3. They are not necessary nor were they the product of chance.
>4. Therefore, the laws of nature are designed.
These don't follow logically.

>>9703241

Why do you believe this?

>>9703250
Even without arguing the toss about what constitutes "intelligent life", number 3 is just an incorrect statement. You haven't shown that they're not necessary or products of chance.

>>9703259

They're not statements, they're premises and if those premises logically follow one to the other. You may disagree that the premises are true but you shouldn't confuse this with an error in logic. If you disagree with the arguments I gave in support of those premises can you be more specific?

>>9703231
Anthrophic Principle + Multiverse turns your "proof" to nothing.
All those universes exist, but most don't contain life. The reason why our parameters are so "mysteriously" tuned to support life is simply that only on those universes where the parameters "fit" they will be observed by living beings.

>>9703307

Why do you believe the multiverse model is true?

>>9703301
The premises do not follow logically. In fact, they directly contradict. If they're "either" those three things then the premise that they're definitely not two of them contradicts that. It certainly doesn't follow from it.

>>9703316

I believe I gave good reasons to favor design over necessity or design. Would you like to engage with the arguments rather than the propositions?

>>9703326
>I believe I gave good reasons to favor design over necessity or design.

Bleh, this is what I really meant

>I believe I gave good reasons to favor design over necessity or chance.

>>9703326
You didn't, as the other anon has explained to you.
>I exist! It seems unlikely that I should exist. Therefore, I must have been made!
Nah cuz. Nah.

>>9703314
I don't. It would just solve the problem of Parameter fine-tuning.

>>9703390

It's a reason, sure, but it's not an ultimate reason. What I mean by this is that while it certainly would explain the fine-tuning of our universe but solving this problem it leads to an even bigger one which requires an even bigger explanation, and that's the question of why the multiverse exists. Now instead of finding out why the universe is the way it is, we need to find out why the multiverse is the way it is. We've enlarged the problem.

>>9699545
There's no problem of evil. As a matter of fact, there's no evil, it's just a human construction.

>>9699545

One thing that helps me endure suffering is the realization that the existence of evil doesn't make sense if there's no God.

A lot of people say evil is just "bad things" or "stuff that hurts," but those definitions don't work. Having a cavity filled or being punished for a crime you committed hurt, but they aren't evil. In fact, these are examples of good medicine or good law enforcement. On the other hand, there can be instances of evil that don't cause pain. A man who fantasizes about raping children but never acts out his fantasies doesn't cause pain, but obviously the man has evil thoughts, not good ones.

Here's a better definition: Evil is what we experience when things are not the way they are supposed to be.

Rape, murder, cancer, and other bad things are evil because they distort the way the world should be. Sex should be an act of love, not an act of violence. Cells should grow into body parts, not tumors. If evil refers to the way things are not supposed to be, then good must refer to the way things are supposed to be. But if things are supposed to be a certain way, then that means there is both a cosmic plan and a cosmic planner--a planner that man people call God.

>>9703449

In order to understand how God could allow evil to exist, we have to understand what "evil" is. Evil is not a thing that God created but an absence of good that God tolerates. Evil is a parasite that can't exist without the good just as rust can't exist without the metal it corrupts. Moral evils like rape or murder, for example, can't exist without the good of people who can freely choose to do right or wrong. Natural evils, such as blindness and disease, can't exist without good things like animals or plants. Even though God didn't create evil, we can still ask, "Why does God allow evils like murder or blindness to exist?"

The short answer is this: it's okay to allow evils to exist if by doing so you bring about more good or prevent a greater evil. Humans allow the evil of car accidents, for example, because the regular use of streets and highways bring about a greater good. We could get rid of car accidents by getting rid of cars, but that solution would be worse than the problem we're trying to solve. Similarly, God could get rid of moral evils like rape by getting rid of human beings or by taking away their free will, but the world would be a worse place if we were all robots. Our world wouldn't have goods like heroism, compassion, or even love, and humans would become the moral equivalents of programmable appliances. But what about natural evils like disease or disasters that aren't related to our free will?

These evils may help us develop virtues that could not exist if God eliminated every instance of suffering. For example, it's impossible for God to make someone courageous if he is not in danger. They might also be necessary for us to live in a predictable world where God doesn't intervene every five seconds to protect us from pain. Finally, as limited and fallible human beings, we are not in a position to say God cannot bring more good from any evil we encounter. Imagine a man who stands one inch away from the Mona Lisa and says, "This is a terrible painting! It's just some black spotches!" Of course, the man can't appreciate the beauty and goodness of the whole painting because he is only looking at one tiny part of it. In the same way, if we only look at suffering, we lose sight of the big picture, or how God can use suffering to create a good and beautiful world.

>>9703420
The multiverse is the sum of everything that can exist, by definition. If your question then becomes but why does the multiverse exist at all, my retort would be why not. The concept of absolute nothingness doesn't seem too coherent for my tastes.

>>9699545

Yes. Creation is Evil. God the Father is the Demiurge. Divergence from the ultimate Good automatically results in ultimate Evil.

>>9699545
Nope and probably won't be.

>>9703456

The pertinent question is why is the multiverse the way it is? Or what set the conditions of the multiverse to allow a universe like ours to begin existing?

>>9703420
Of course, the solution causes a problem on a higher level. But the whole concept of "ultimate reason" may be a spook and based on the human mind, not reality. Google "Mathematical Universe Theory". Maybe things are not "caused" but simply exist because they are consistent. Physics and mathematics are connected in a strange way and nobody knows how. However, physics may just be the shadow we see, and the universe is platonic.

>>9703453

Horrible dead-end argument.

Why should the supreme Good resort to any Evil in order to create anything?

>>9699115
Ok. I'll bite, have a (you).

God exists on this world as an element of faith.

Think of it this way: if you were to see God for who he is, in all his glory, you would not physically be able from doing anything but dropping to your hands and knees and weep his praises.
In other words, if there were """evidence""" , all who heard it would be believers automatically.
Faith would be null and there'd no longer be free will; just submission. God doesn't want that for us.

All we know is that a guy 2000 years ago got so popular that he threatened the local government, was killed for being popular, and was found missing from his tomb after 3 later even though there was a massive fucking stone door and a roman centurion guard. Soon after, his closest disciples despite seeing their messiah die on a cross, went and traveled the world claiming hope remained.

This is the basis for our faith.

>>9703483

I think you misread something because God doesn't "resort" to using evil, he allows it. I gave a few reasons why God might allow evil to exist such as free will, or to create a greater good, and so on. If it can be shown that God has a single valid reason to allow the existence of the tiniest evil then the problem of evil falls apart.

I don't know why people act like the problem of evil is so strong. It's not a logical problem because you can come up with all sorts of reasons why an all-good God would allow the existence of evil. The strength of the argument is purely in the emotional or rhetorical aspects of it and it seems to mostly be used by those interested in manipulating others to believe like them rather than honestly seeking truth.

>>9703529

Wait, let me say that again.

>>9703505
>>9703542

Free will does not entail Evil. The cause of a greater good implies the initial condition of Creation is deliberately abject, which in turn implies resorting to Evil, not only as the Morally dubious negative liberty bestowed upon Creation but as the Morally monstrous initial act preceding Creation itself. A greater good is also problematic since the result would have to be lesser or equal to God, assuming he is the ultimate Good. As such, Ideal Creation would be redundant at best, and degenerate at worst.

Though I agree that "God" does has a reason to allow Evil - he's Evil. And that the problem only exists if you don't recognize this truth.

>>9703529
>>9703559

I agree that free will doesn't necessitate the existence of evil, that's not my argument. What I'm saying is that free will necessitates the ability to do evil. We have to have the choice to do evil otherwise we're just robots. If God has an overriding goal for mankind, such as creating a loving brotherhood, then in order to not violate the law of non contradiction he would have to give us free will and thus the ability to do evil. So it follows from this that the existence of evil is not a logical contradiction to the existence of an all-Good creator. The state of Creation would be a consequence of our free will, not anything that God did.

>>9703567

Many have called to attention how this portrait of God is the culmination of all that is loathsome in Man and the exclusion of all that is good. So much so that one would think the beast is in his image, and that this God laid before it the Human Spirit for sustenance and game.

>>9699115
No. Now kill yourself schizo fuck.

>>9703130
>Finally, this cause must be personal and can't be a mindless force because it chose to create a finite universe that is only a few billion years old
I don't understand how this sentence makes sense.

Also, I'm interested in >>9703156 question. What is everyone's definition of "god" here?

>>9703476
Isn't there a lot of unanswered questions about the nature of God too? Either way you're enlarging the problem

>>9703669

For the sake of argument or explanation suppose the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of the universe and the singularity itself was is first cause. If we think of the singularity as a rock, a rock couldn't move on its own, if a rock started moving it would have to have some other cause so it couldn't be considered the first cause. Similarly, the singularity couldn't begin expanding on its own. This means that there has to be an intelligence that is intrinsic to the singularity or the rock that caused it to being moving on its own.

>>9703703

What sort of unanswered questions? If you mean that the fine-tuning argument can't tell us everything about God then I would agree. From the various explanations of why the universe is the way it is the argument can only tell us what is more likely. We can infer from other arguments what sort of God exists.

>>9699115
I'd sooner accept the idea that there are several gods than one God but for now I don't believe either is true.

>>9699121
I pretty much agree with you, but the point is that a being (or more beings) [Or a AND more being/s] isn't/aren't limited by our physical laws and thus could be LITERALLY anything. He/they is/are the maximum possible form of possibility. The chance that he/they is/are exactly how we limited humans described he/them is literally one out of infinite.

>>9703728
If God is supposed to trascend our definitions time and existence, aren' we just conveniently accepting a whole new plane of "existence"? That by definition we cannot get any answers as to what it is exactly, doesn't mean the answers don't exist.
To me it seems like any explanation we wan't to give to the origin of the universe, they'll all gonna be big "maybe's" because we're not really ready to try to answer them.

>>9699388
keeping in mind the distinction between not believing P and believing not-P, a charitable interpretation is
>you should not believe an assertion without evidence
and a really charitable interpretation is
>you should not believe an assertion without a reason

the former puts an evidential constraint on believing, whereas the latter just puts a minimal rational constraint on it (which evidentialists like the new atheists would interpret--wrongly--to be equivalent to the former)
but both of these are actually weaker than what i think is implied by hitchens' wording, which includes "dismissed"
"dismissing" a claim is stronger than just suspending belief in its truth; it implies something somewhere between not taking the claim seriously and assuming it is false or at least implausible
as well, the quote doesn't pertain to the abstract or the general but to specific concrete situations of debate; it's a practical suggestion of what to do when presented with a claim by a particular opponent
so a realistic interpretation, given the actual wording and some knowledge of the new atheists, would be
>for any claim your opponent offers without giving evidence for it, refuse to take it seriously (and perhaps go ahead and consider it improbable too)

and this is terrible advice for two general reasons:
(i) it implies an excessive (and excessively empirical) epistemic standard
(ii) it creates an infinite regress, making debates impossible (since you are advised not to take anything your opponent says seriously until he offers evidence, and the same applies to each evidential claim ad infinitum, so that you will never take anything your opponent says seriously)

File: 1375268248866.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

>>9699388
Just like your whole assertion, then?

>>9699176
>In the beginning Truth created the heavens and the earth.

Hmm

I find Taoism interesting. It's more philosophy than religion; there are no creator gods and it recognises forces and interactions between particles. Tao roughly translates as "the way of the Universe". Meditation helped me deal with extreme depression since it was hard to tune out negative thoughts in other ways, and while I wouldn't call myself religious it did help me significantly at that time. I still believe science over religion, but I at least acknowledge there is value in some of these rituals. The concept of being at peace with yourself and others is interesting, and in the case of Taoism isn't achieved through rigid cans/can'ts. I know this is more religion-focused than God specifically, but talking about one brings up the other inevitably.

>>9699384
Well until we can get to an elevated level of understanding as a species, then I guess we'll claw and dig with it until we get there right?

life is the proof

This is the last time I browse /lit/ at 2:00 AM.

>>9699545
Look up Simone Weil.

>>9703731
Why are several gods more believable to you than a single God? Several gods would compete for power and likely destroy each other. And it's contradictory for 2 separate wills to both have omnipotent power. If they never disagree, it's just 1 God in 2 Forms. If they sometimes disagree, then the entire universe would be in chaos or it would have inconsistent rules. This is only if there's 2 gods. A polytheistic conception would have several gods--dozens or hundreds! Then they couldn't all have omnipotent power and separate identities.

>>9699115
>Does <undefined term> exist?