Religion

[SpontaneousOrder]

Fair question, but one without an answer (I'm aware of) which will satisfy you - in fact I think by definition no answer to this can satisfy you.

You can't use the scientific method to [dis]prove God, because the scientific method relies on repeatable experiment, on a subject which isn't aware of the experiment. Vaguely akin to using blind trials in medicine I suppose, which rely on the subject (a person) not knowing which way they are 'supposed' to react. If you want to prove I always take the same route to work but you tell me, I might go the other way just to mess with you.

Trying to treat a god as something you can experiment on simply makes no sense.

A specific example of this failure in understanding is trying to do a clinical trial on the efficacy of prayer. The scientific method demands prayer is some sort of natural process, controlled by the person doing the praying, which can then be studied in a blind trial to see if it works. But Christianity (as one example) says the person praying does nothing, only God choosing to answer - that's going to mess up your results when God knows about the trial. (and yes I know "why does he answer some prayers not others?" but that's not the topic we're discussing)

Well I'd be satisfied by a reason. You're right in that I probably wouldn't view it as a good reason, but it can still be a valid reason even if it's not a good reason (in my opinion).

I.e. why God, but not other things? You accept the scientific method in 99% of your daily living (the very fact that we're posting arguments here implies some sense of real truth/falsehood, at some level, is the goal), but some ideas are exempt and others you (I assume) would describe as being absurd.

If the answer is some internal feeling/experience then it's hard for anyone to argue against that - other than to suggest that it's more likely some kind of subconsciously manufactured feeling. But its a valid reason.

If it's simply that it makes you feel better, then I'd say that it's a bad reason - but it's still a valid reason.

If it's something else that makes God a special exception, then I'd like to know - because otherwise atheists just think it's the second of those 2 answers, and try to convince you that it's a bad reason on the assumption that you haven't realised that yet.

Perhaps it's some kind of innate, but unexplainable, knowledge that people have - but in that case it shouldn't be surprising that (or reasonable to not expect) other people to think that you're battulip crazy. And if people understand that that is the reason, they'd know it's not a belief that non-believer's reason can undo.

I think i'd be satisfied with any of those reasons, although then the debate would not be about God, but about whether it's reasonable or not for other people to confidently assume that you're mistaken - unless the believer agreed that it would be a reasonable assumption. Although perhaps that's a different topic - although it's raised as an issue elsewhere in this thread.

[unixman]

*why* do you believe in God?

I don't really know. Probably it is just a result of life experiences and the people I met. Incidentally, I have no interest in what other people believe or don't.

IMHO 2+2=4, all knowledge, and any concept that can be entertained, it's all great, but it is also all circumscribed / transcended by the notion of God. That is not insulting science, just saying one does not address the other. It's not meant to.

The spagetti thing makes me smile, because it is an obviously pisspoor argument, and yet paraded with such glee down the pub by those who have just decided to be atheists, and clearly think they are onto real philosophical dynmite. FFS. Probably we all believe, or not, as a result of life experience, but it tickles our vanity to believe we can prove or disprove something which we clearly can't, especially if we can do it loudly and in front of others.

[tractor]

...

You will never prove or disprove the existence of God. The whole notion is transcendental. I believe in God, but have no problem with anyone who doesn't, obviously. (I sometimes have not believed, and the level of conviction inevitably varies. How could it not?)

Most annoying are those tedious gimps who profess total certainty that God does not exist, simply in order to appear the cleverest person in the room. They aren't even proper atheists.

But those are only equal to the tedious gimps who profess total certainty that God does exist and only offer faith (and the usual request for money) as their reasoning.

What I find the most tedious though, is that most religions claim to be convinced their god is the only god and want to convert everyone to their version of religion. Which is the 'right' god? Why is one god more deserving/believable than any other? Or a tree, for that matter?

[MyUserName]

Most annoying are those tedious gimps who profess total certainty that God does not exist, simply in order to appear the cleverest person in the room. They aren't even proper atheists.

Are you equally annoyed by people who profess total certainty that the tooth fairy does not exist?

[MyUserName]

You cannot disprove gods in the same way you cannot disprove other supernatural creatures or negatives in general. People who do not believe in a god are not 'choosing' to be atheists any more than I 'choose' to believe my car is still outside.

However, we can examine the claims made by gods and see whether they hold up and even if they do we still need to look at them and decide whether they are something we want to worship e.g. would you be happy in the Christian heaven knowing that there were millions of people being tortured forever, many of them just for making the mistake of devoutly following the religion of their parents (which is also what most Christians do)? If Jesus walked around doing miracles etc. how do you know he was the son of God did not gain supernatural powers from a different source?

Once you have examined the facts enough to convince yourself that a god exists and then you examine the god's claims and decide whether they are worth worshiping then you are golden!

[tractor]

...

You cannot disprove gods in the same way you cannot disprove other supernatural creatures or negatives in general. People who do not believe in a god are not 'choosing' to be atheists any more than I 'choose' to believe my car is still outside.

However, we can examine the claims made by gods and see whether they hold up and even if they do we still need to look at them and decide whether they are something we want to worship e.g. would you be happy in the Christian heaven knowing that there were millions of people being tortured forever, many of them just for making the mistake of devoutly following the religion of their parents (which is also what most Christians do)? If Jesus walked around doing miracles etc. how do you know he was the son of God did not gain supernatural powers from a different source?

Once you have examined the facts enough to convince yourself that a god exists and then you examine the god's claims and decide whether they are worth worshiping then you are golden!

There is no evidence the gods have ever said anything.

There is only second hand gossip that cannot be proven or disproven. In that respect, it is no more or less creditworthy than Big Brother's Bit on the Side.

[MyUserName]

There is no evidence the gods have ever said anything.

There is only second hand gossip that cannot be proven or disproven. In that respect, it is no more or less creditworthy than Big Brother's Bit on the Side.

You are preaching to the converted here. I spent my time in church when I was a kid right up until I asked someone why our god was real but other gods were not. My main exposure to religion now is creationist in-laws but they have started leaving me alone now as I can nullify pretty much all of their arguments.

[RasputinDude]

. would you be happy in the Christian heaven knowing that there were millions of people being tortured forever, many of them just for making the mistake of devoutly following the religion of their parents (which is also what most Christians do)?

Could you just point me at the biblical source that teaches that?

[MyUserName]

Could you just point me at the biblical source that teaches that?

I don't have all of the sources to hand but Jesus claims that the only way to the father is through accepting him. Hence if you don't reject your family etc. and accept him (and therefore the idea of someone else being killed for crimes you committed) you don't get to go to heaven where you will forever sit around telling God how awesome he is or something.

The gospel of Matthew talks about hell being a place full of gnashing teeth and wailing etc.

Hence when you are in heaven there will be people being tortured in hell. More than one Christian has told me they look forward to seeing me being tortured in hell when they are in heaven, which was nice.

[GlenW]

I don't have all of the sources to hand but Jesus claims that the only way to the father is through accepting him. Hence if you don't reject your family etc. and accept him (and therefore the idea of someone else being killed for crimes you committed) you don't get to go to heaven where you will forever sit around telling God how awesome he is or something.

The gospel of Matthew talks about hell being a place full of gnashing teeth and wailing etc.

Hence when you are in heaven there will be people being tortured in hell. More than one Christian has told me they look forward to seeing me being tortured in hell when they are in heaven, which was nice.

Then there are the Catholics who believe that babies who die before being baptised will spend eternity in purgatory. Nice people.