Existence of God vs. Existence of man

[OnlyAmbrose]

Just some thoughts I've been tossing around, figured I'd throw them out here.

The common atheist argument is "There isn't sufficient evidence to prove God's existence", etc etc.

Alright. Fair enough. But is there sufficient evidence to prove to me that you exist?

Descarte's famous line is "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). While that is sufficient to prove my own existence, it is not sufficient to prove the existence of anyone (or anything) else.

That being said, there is virtually no way for you to prove your existence to me.

The parallel I'm trying to set up here is belief in a man and belief in a God. Do you believe that I exist? If so, you making the same "leap of faith", as it were, as a theist.

Sure, you can empirically prove through your senses that I exist, but who's to say your senses are right? Senses deceive. Furthermore, who's to say that this existence you envision is real? What if it is not, in fact, a dream? There is no way to empirically prove that this is not the case - just as there is no way to empirically prove that there is a God.

Furthermore, do you believe that George Washington existed? Do you believe that he crossed the Delware River in 1776? Why do you believe that?

This could be paralleled with asking a Christian why he believes that Jesus existed and worked miracles.

Just some thoughts I've been having. Have at them, if you would

[vtmarik]

Well, the empirical evidence is the fact that other people are made up of matter and take up space, therefore they do indeed exist.

We know they take up space because things stop when they collide with human bodies, and we know they contain matter because non-human measuring instruments react to the presence of a body on them.

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.


God, as to your postulate, has no measurable volume, mass, or any other measurable attribute by any device we currently possess. There is no physical evidence of his direct presence (although some claim to find evidence of God in various events and/or things).

[Blastshot]

Well, the empirical evidence is the fact that other people are made up of matter and take up space, therefore they do indeed exist.

We know they take up space because things stop when they collide with human bodies, and we know they contain matter because non-human measuring instruments react to the presence of a body on them.

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.


God, as to your postulate, has no measurable volume, mass, or any other measurable attribute by any device we currently possess. There is no physical evidence of his direct presence (although some claim to find evidence of God in various events and/or things).

Mass,matter, and volume use the senses of touch and sight, who says this is not a dream? "CoughMatrixcough"

[joecoolfrog]

Well we could be all part of a matrix like illusion but for discussion sake I think we should stick to likely probability. Firstly the idea that most Atheists spend any great amount of time disproving or even thinking about God is misplaced, we have dismissed the idea as a myth no different to Father Xmas or the Easter Bunny, and thats an end to it.
I realise that commited Christians find this difficult to accept but it really is no different from say a commited sports fan being bemused by the indifference of others towards his teams.
Apart from idle discussions like this the only time I consider God or religion is when it encroaches upon my or others civil liberties, stay in church and out of politics and I would consider you as often as I do the members of the local womens institute.
Now when it comes to probability it is a stark reality that,in most cases,the more recent the event the more accurate is our knowledge and assesment of it. With todays advanced telecommunications it may still be possible to distort what is happening in the World but it is very difficult to completely change the overall picture. For instance the USA government will naturally always put a gloss on how succesfull the operation in Iraq is ,but it dare not fabricate too much because the situation is so transparent. Now the situation with God is rather different because frankly there is not a shred of evidence to prove his existence or otherwise, acceptance is based on faith alone and dismissal is completely understandable given that there is no scientific or rational reason to believe.
A better example of probability would be the case of Jesus, his existence and whether he was truly the son of God. We have no videos or tapes unfortunately so we must rely on what little written documentation exists and try to make a judgement on its accuracy.Without boring you too much I will jump to my conclusions, that on the basis of probability, add up in my opinion:

1) Did the man we call Jesus exist - Almost definitely given the weight of documentation to support the fact.
2) Was he the son of God - Well it all comes down to how much one wishes to rely on a few Gospels which were written by supporters of Christianity after the event then selected ( from many many more writings ) translated and edited by the Church. Nobody with an open mind would accept this as in the least reliable if it were presented today, so in all probability any divine interpretation is fallacy.
Anyhow thats the way I see it and I think that it is a pity that we can all not accept the spiritual comfort and morality of Christianity without the need to promote the dubious Hocus Pocus that is associated with it.

[Coleman]

Actually we are all figments of Mitchell Mackinson's imagination (the real name has been disguised for his safety as his death would destroy the universe). I have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt myself and have promised him I will keep his secret by disguising his name whenever I reveal the truth online to the ignorant.

I also have several quick suicide methods to employ in the event I am captured in an attempt to reveal the true name. One of which I can share because there is nothing any of you can do about it. There is a bomb in my skull set to go off if I am not heard from in 18 hours by a specific source, this source is not inside the United States.

[WidowMakers]

By saying there is no god, a person assumes they know everything. They assume that they have the ability to see and know what is in every corner of our galaxy/universe at the same time. If they can't do that then they can't say there is no god.

And even if we did know everything and could be everywhere to see that god was not in our dimension, who is to say he could not be outside?

There are things that humans currently do not understand. There are things we may never understand. To say there is not god because we can't prove it is not good enough. Some may say that we will prove it in the future. That is based on the assumption above that we can eventually know everything and see everything to prove god is not real. That is based on the assumption that man has the ability for infinite knowledge and insight. And that is not provable (or reality IMHO) either.

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.

I agree. We cant prove (scientifically) there are personalities. But would you say people do not have them? I doubt it. Here is a great example of a thing that everyone has but no on can scientifically explain. If this is true about the mind or personality, what else can be said about other things humans do not understand. Are they less real?



WM

[static_ice]

WM I agree with all of that except:

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.

I agree. We cant prove (scientifically) there are personalities. But would you say people do not have them? I doubt it. Here is a great example of a thing that everyone has but no one can scientifically explain. If this is true about the mind or personality, what else can be said about other things humans do not understand. Are they less real?



WM

isn't personality developed based on a combination of genes and experience? so could that mean that we can scientifically explain personalities?





anyway, whether or not we need to solve all of the mysteries of the universe, I believe the answer to the question can be found within yourself, not from external, statistical data or a lack of external, statistical data. Do you have a conscience? Ever feel your heart sink when you do something wrong or rise up after hesitantly doing the right thing? To me that is enough proof of god; the way I see it he's inside of us all and that is his mass, not some ball of light up in the sky or at the end of the universe.
but that's just my own little theory

[magneticgoop]

No mare watching the MATRIX

[joecoolfrog]

By saying there is no god, a person assumes they know everything. They assume that they have the ability to see and know what is in every corner of our galaxy/universe at the same time. If they can't do that then they can't say there is no god.

And even if we did know everything and could be everywhere to see that god was not in our dimension, who is to say he could not be outside?

There are things that humans currently do not understand. There are things we may never understand. To say there is not god because we can't prove it is not good enough. Some may say that we will prove it in the future. That is based on the assumption above that we can eventually know everything and see everything to prove god is not real. That is based on the assumption that man has the ability for infinite knowledge and insight. And that is not provable (or reality IMHO) either.

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.

I agree. We cant prove (scientifically) there are personalities. But would you say people do not have them? I doubt it. Here is a great example of a thing that everyone has but no on can scientifically explain. If this is true about the mind or personality, what else can be said about other things humans do not understand. Are they less real?



What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

[static_ice]

What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

that evidence is supposed to be in the form of how you feel after soaking yourself into it all.

[magneticgoop]

my thoughts on all this is are, you all could be figments of my imagination i may be the sole being in all of the universe(s) who imagined everything up the way it is to entertain myself or for anther reason unknown to me. and like wise i may be a figment of your imagination. we will never be able to prove our or each other's existence in any case wither we are real or not we are all stuck here in this world that may or may not be made up and we are discussing a moot point.

[static_ice]

my thoughts on all this is are, you all could be figments of my imagination i may be the sole being in all of the universe(s) who imagined everything up the way it is to entertain myself or for anther reason unknown to me. and like wise i may be a figment of your imagination. we will never be able to prove our or each other's existence in any case wither we are real or not we are all stuck here in this world that may or may not be made up and we are discussing a moot point.

pretty much delusion theory already, however to add from Moorcock, we could be dreaming up the universe OR the universe could be dreaming us

[joecoolfrog]

What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

that evidence is supposed to be in the form of how you feel after soaking yourself into it all.

I could drop a ton of acid,feel really good and see pink elephants but that certainly doesnt mean they exist. On the contrary it would simply suggest that swallowing a heap of shit fires the imagination and leads one to believe in things that are far from real

[bedub1]

See my magic Whistle? It keeps dinosaurs away! How do i prove it really works? Well...you don't see any Dinosaurs do you? So it MUST be working!

Another example of this argument:

RIAA: Prove I didn't buy this CD.

[Anarchy Ninja]

anyway, whether or not we need to solve all of the mysteries of the universe, I believe the answer to the question can be found within yourself, not from external, statistical data or a lack of external, statistical data. Do you have a conscience? Ever feel your heart sink when you do something wrong or rise up after hesitantly doing the right thing? To me that is enough proof of god; the way I see it he's inside of us all and that is his mass, not some ball of light up in the sky or at the end of the universe.
but that's just my own little theory

But what about sociopaths(sp), I may be wrong and correct me if I am, but aren't they incapable of such feelings or something?

[static_ice]

What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

that evidence is supposed to be in the form of how you feel after soaking yourself into it all.

I could drop a ton of acid,feel really good and see pink elephants but that certainly doesnt mean they exist. On the contrary it would simply suggest that swallowing a heap of shit fires the imagination and leads one to believe in things that are far from real

but all religion has to do for you is prove itself to YOU. It doesn't have to prove itself to the whole world. To add to some of ambrose's thoughts, I don't know for sure if you exist, but YOU do know for sure that you exist, and by you "knowing" it doesn't mean that its a fact to the whole world, it just means that you are real to yourself.

Religion is like that, as long as you believe in it then it is real to you.

[static_ice]

anyway, whether or not we need to solve all of the mysteries of the universe, I believe the answer to the question can be found within yourself, not from external, statistical data or a lack of external, statistical data. Do you have a conscience? Ever feel your heart sink when you do something wrong or rise up after hesitantly doing the right thing? To me that is enough proof of god; the way I see it he's inside of us all and that is his mass, not some ball of light up in the sky or at the end of the universe.
but that's just my own little theory

But what about sociopaths(sp), I may be wrong and correct me if I am, but aren't they incapable of such feelings or something?

I'm pretty sure they can still feel guilt

Diagnosis of Antisocial personality disorder is documented to be significantly more common among men than among women.[1]

Central to identifying individuals exhibiting characteristics of the disorder is that they appear to experience a limited range of human emotions. This can explain their lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience the emotion associated with either empathy or suffering. Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to escape feeling empty or emotionally void.[citation needed] The rage exhibited by sociopaths, as well as the anxiety associated with certain presentations of antisocial personality disorder, may represent the limit of emotion(s) experienced, or might also suggest physiological responses, without analogy to emotion, experienced by others.[citation needed]

According to the older theory of Freudian psychoanalysis, a person with antisocial personality disorder has a strong id and ego that overpowers the superego. The theory proposes that internalized morals of our unconscious mind are restricted from surfacing to the ego and consciousness. However, this explanation provides no insight into the cause or treatment of the problem.[citation needed]

Research has shown that individuals with antisocial personality disorder are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened.

One approach to explaining antisocial personality disorder behaviors is put forth by sociobiology, a science that attempts to understand and explain a wide variety of human behavior based on evolutionary biology. Sociobiological explanations for antisocial behavior types explore evolutionarily stable strategies, attempting to discern whether the antisocial phenotype has evolved because it gains fitness specifically within, or alongside, the survival strategies of other humans exhibiting different, perhaps complementary behaviors (e.g., in a symbiotic or parasitic manner).[2]

whatever... decide for yourself

[joecoolfrog]

What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

that evidence is supposed to be in the form of how you feel after soaking yourself into it all.

I could drop a ton of acid,feel really good and see pink elephants but that certainly doesnt mean they exist. On the contrary it would simply suggest that swallowing a heap of shit fires the imagination and leads one to believe in things that are far from real

but all religion has to do for you is prove itself to YOU. It doesn't have to prove itself to the whole world. To add to some of ambrose's thoughts, I don't know for sure if you exist, but YOU do know for sure that you exist, and by you "knowing" it doesn't mean that its a fact to the whole world, it just means that you are real to yourself.

Religion is like that, as long as you believe in it then it is real to you.

I dont really see where this is going , I totaly accept personal spiritual faith as a good thing on the whole and I have already said that I have no need of proof unless it affects me. What I did say,and you have not adressed this, is that atheists do not have to disprove anything because God is irrelevent to them . My gripe is not with personal faith it is with organised religion when it seeks to impose its values on others,that is when I would like some evidence that the whole thing isnt a sham. Politicians who cite God to excuse their blunders or to drum up support for their policies tend to be a very bad thing indeed you may have noticed !

[static_ice]

What a wonderful exercise in turning things on their head
The trouble is that Atheists dont say that they can prove there is no God,they simply dont believe in one which is a very different thing indeed. If a claim is made about anything,ie that there is a God,then the onus of proof lies with the person making the claim not the other way around. I dont care if there is a God so why do I need to prove he doesnt exist, religion however makes certain promises based on the premise that there is definitely a God and therefore one should expect some sort of evidence he exists.

that evidence is supposed to be in the form of how you feel after soaking yourself into it all.

I could drop a ton of acid,feel really good and see pink elephants but that certainly doesnt mean they exist. On the contrary it would simply suggest that swallowing a heap of shit fires the imagination and leads one to believe in things that are far from real

but all religion has to do for you is prove itself to YOU. It doesn't have to prove itself to the whole world. To add to some of ambrose's thoughts, I don't know for sure if you exist, but YOU do know for sure that you exist, and by you "knowing" it doesn't mean that its a fact to the whole world, it just means that you are real to yourself.

Religion is like that, as long as you believe in it then it is real to you.

I dont really see where this is going , I totaly accept personal spiritual faith as a good thing on the whole and I have already said that I have no need of proof unless it affects me. What I did say,and you have not adressed this, is that atheists do not have to disprove anything because God is irrelevent to them . My gripe is not with personal faith it is with organised religion when it seeks to impose its values on others,that is when I would like some evidence that the whole thing isnt a sham. Politicians who cite God to excuse their blunders or to drum up support for their policies tend to be a very bad thing indeed you may have noticed !

yes, are you saying that atheists don't care about God? Because I'd agree with that, they don't have to prove/disprove anything. Sorry if I misinterpreted your point.

and yes I agree with the rest of that, with people trying to force it down your throat they don't make you "feel" whatever you're supposed to feel in a religion at all, and politicians shouldn't try to relate to atheists with something that atheists care nothing for.

[mr. incrediball]

when someone punches me in the face i just say "you aren't real, you don't exist and you didn't just punch me in the face."

and then they do it again, and i realise it hurts.

[unriggable]

Better question, is Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen real?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Well, the empirical evidence is the fact that other people are made up of matter and take up space, therefore they do indeed exist.

We know they take up space because things stop when they collide with human bodies, and we know they contain matter because non-human measuring instruments react to the presence of a body on them.

Now, if you're speaking of the personality or soul, then there is no proof to show that anyone's individual identity exists. But as far as the physicality is concerned, there's plenty of empirical evidence.


God, as to your postulate, has no measurable volume, mass, or any other measurable attribute by any device we currently possess. There is no physical evidence of his direct presence (although some claim to find evidence of God in various events and/or things).

Here's the thing vt- empirical evidence is based on our senses. Data gathered through seeing things, and measuring things through perception.

But... what if our perception is wrong?

Take, for instance, a schizophrenic - a person with an altered state of reality. The hallucinations he sees have a measurable volume and mass - to him. Who's to say we all have a correct perception of reality? Who's to say we're not just as wrong as the schizophrenic is?

The greatest of the theistic philosophers, of course including Descartes, begin by doubting EVERYTHING. People say that theists don't have enough doubt - bogus! The greatest of them all begins by doubting his own existence, followed by God's.

Anywho point being that empirical evidence is not the end-all, and in the end there is just as little verifiable evidence for your existence as there is for God's.

[The1exile]

I don't exist. Other people just think I do. Because I can make them believe I exist, I do to them. Since God can't to the majority of atheists, he doesn't to them. If he does to you, that's fine with me, but do you have to try and change my beliefs if he can't do it for himself?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I don't exist. Other people just think I do. Because I can make them believe I exist, I do to them. Since God can't to the majority of atheists, he doesn't to them. If he does to you, that's fine with me, but do you have to try and change my beliefs if he can't do it for himself?

The idea behind evangelization is NOT that we are converting people - it's that God is acting through us to make himself known to people.

God makes himself known through His creation (as we've already established, He has no mass or volume, but his creation certainly does). As we are all part of His creation, it follows that He may make Himself known to others through us.

But that's not where I'm going with this thread - what I'm talking about is simply that the faith of a theist in God's existence is comparable to the faith of an atheist in anyone else's existence, because clearly empirical evidence is not sufficient to prove whether something exists, simply because empirical evidence is based on perception, which can be different depending on someone's mental state.

[The1exile]

The idea behind evangelization is NOT that we are converting people - it's that God is acting through us to make himself known to people.

Do you really not see the problem with that statement?

By the same logic, a serial killer calling himself the "sword of god" is, unarguably, acting for God. Because God works through his creation! He must have meant for this to happen! With that, any believer can justify, for example, the extremist suicide bombers? Never mind the families ripped apart by grief, because someone's god told them to do it!

But that's not where I'm going with this thread - what I'm talking about is simply that the faith of a theist in God's existence is comparable to the faith of an atheist in anyone else's existence, because clearly empirical evidence is not sufficient to prove whether something exists, simply because empirical evidence is based on perception, which can be different depending on someone's mental state.

This debate is rather pointless, since I can't prove I've had it, either. After all, I just have a memory of doing so, and a vision of the text on what appears to be a computer screen in what appears to be a world... All evidence is circumstantial.

I've never been able to prove I existed since I read the RATEOTU but so long as I can convince others I exist, I don't need to. if God can't do that directly, then I won't believe in him. Seems fair enough to me.