Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Lack of Agreement on What God Is
A good observation. Not an argument.
Exactly! This is a fabulous OBSERVATION. But that's all it is. Many people look at the sun everyday, and many people see it differently, but does that mean it doesn't exist? No. In fact, the very existence of so many views seems to make it more likely, more probable, and more believable that God exists. There are many different points of view on what government ought to be, but this observation does not mean that government doesn't exist. I agree completely with the observation, but that's all it is. It fails to function as an argument, and therefore cannot be valued as such in evaluatin the existence of God. In fact, this argument is much more easily turned into a theistic argument.
- jdefriez August 6, 2008 2:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not an argument for either case
I agree that the lack of a single definition of God is not a good argument against there being one, but similarly, I don't see that the reverse is true either.
For example - there are many mythologies about dragons/serpents around the world, in many cultures, and which have been independently developed within these cultures. These mythologies have a quite a few similarities and a lot of discrepancies. But I would use this lack of agreement as evidence of there being dragons.
- Horus Kol August 31, 2008 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Missed the Point Entirely
Those examples you gave are things that we can demonstrate to others. The sun feels warm, produces light, we can measure all of it's attributes. If you are going to claim that because literally every person could have a completely different way of conceiving god that that would mean that God is everything to everyone. He can be anything you want him/her/it to be! So which is more likely: an amorphous being that is beyond description and consistently contradictory... or a figment of our imaginations?
Ponder that one.
- GermyJ
May 19, 2009 3:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Remember the Burden
I began with this argument because its theme runs throughout all the other arguments. And that theme is that the burden of proof to show that a god exists rests with the theist. The person who finds no warrant to believe in a god doesn't have to prove anything. The nontheist merely needs to wait for the evidence to be presented, wait to be persuaded. And whenever an argument is proffered, that argument needs to be analyzed to see if it indeed makes its case.
So we start with the definition. What is anyone even talking about when they talk about God? It often isn't clear. So we can barely begin the discussion! The theist has therefore failed to define terms, or to agree upon terms well enough, to allow a case for a god to be made in the first place.
So, to make sense of this and all my other arguments, you need to keep in mind that I make no attempt to disprove God. I only seek to show that the arguments put forth in support of God have failed. And, in the absence of a workable case for God, the only reasonable conclusion to draw, at least for now, is that God doesn't exist.
The same logic follows for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
- American Humanist Association
October 2, 2008 5:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
this comprehensible universe- Existence
Fellow naturalist,it is so true about that burden. Now I do ever try to reflect nature not needing God to direct or sustain it.
Faith is not a warrant for belief,contrary to Alvin Platinga, as it is just the we just say so of credullity. It begs the question of God as there is indeed no evidence whatsoever for Him. With Sydney Hook, we naturalist find that science is acquired knowledge while faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith keeps believers in the darkness of superstition!
We rationalists do not have to be omniscient but to find no evidence for Him as presented and no logic in the arguments for Him.
- skeptic griggsy October 14, 2008 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Excellent points!!
[I am brand new to this site so bear with me] I agree with you that if we cannot agree on the definition of "God" we cannot begin to prove or disprove his/her/its existence. We might as well start by looking within ourselves using metaphysics and psychology and look for clues to why we have a need to account for our existence with a creator. I am perfectly willing to accept that all that is (in the physically measurable universe) always existed yet changes form continuously. There are however a few curious concepts in physics (and metaphysics) which lead me to my agnostic stance. As an agnostic I don't try to believe or disbelieve in a God in a traditional theistic way. I think that however it can be argued that IMHO a universal order (complexity well beyond disorder) and consciousness continuously evolving would take the place of a thus far primitive "God" concept.
I am curious that if we as people are matter and matter and energy are as Einstein and others have proven are a continuum (i.e. can be converted) than we are all actually energy that is in a much "rested" state. If were are potential energy then the power of our consciousness is in itself also energy (IMHO of a higher level than the physical) that we thus have not been able to understand). I would submit to you that this energy which is life, that = spirit and consciousness, is all pervasive and not limited to our limited understanding of living matter.
Also I find it curious that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics implies entropy and quite obviously life in opposition to this law with its enormous complexity. So I think there are extremely difficult arguments for the theists to prove their side but my best hypothesis is that we may continue to uncover "proof" of at least persuadable evidence to the critical mind that the ultimate answers to these questions may be found at the yet unimaginable levels obtained by human consciousness BEYOND thought....namely the realm of the spiritual humanist
Regards,
spiritualagnostic 11/30/08
- spiritualagnostic
November 29, 2008 11:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God is fatuous, nebulous, specious, and vacuous- no substance!
Those observations are not then incompatible with each other,but God's putative properties exhibit incompatibility such that we ignostics declare Him vacuous. Thus arguments for Him start off without substance and they further exhibit no substance for Him.
jdfrieze, gee whiz.
- skeptic griggsy October 15, 2008 5:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Non-sequitur
Why does existence of 'many views make it more likely...that god exists'? What is the connection between number of opinions or definitions and likelihood of existence? As far as I am aware there is no physical law linking these two attributes.
- The Celestial Teapot
December 9, 2009 9:23AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.