the case against the case against god

[robvalue]

I'd like to share a very interesting clip which discusses what is possible, and when it's correct to say something is possible.

When asking does God exist, you should really first be asking CAN God exist? Is it possible? According to the definition, and what we find out about the universe, we may find that it isn't actually possible. So the right response is I don't know IF it is possible.

Watch and you'll see what I mean

Edit: you can say under certain definitions, like the classic omni everything definition, that it is impossible that it exists, simply because it is not logically consistent with itself and reality.

http://youtu.be/LqNDrOxhZho

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] I find it odd how Atheists stay neutral regarding existence of God [...]

You might want to think about what you're writing before you subject it to public scrutiny.

[robvalue]

We have the same stance on God that we have with a teapot on the other side of the universe that controls the weather.

[Mystic]

If you have some false memories, it means memory is never reliable and you can never be certain of a certain memory?

Precisely. What it means is that your memory is capable of producing true recollections and false recollections, meaning you'd need some other way of determining which was which, and that can't just be "more memories."

It's the same with personal experiences; if your personal experiences can produce a false picture of reality then you cannot reliably claim that your personal experiences are evidence in and of themselves. You'd need some outside indication of which category your particular personal experience falls into, something objectively real to demonstrate that what you're experiencing conforms to reality.

And if you're having to look outside of subjective experience in order to verify your feelings about god, you can pretty much just skip the middle man and look to reality before coming to your conclusions. Of course, if you did that you'd find nothing to justify your personal feelings about god at all, which is why you're so set on keeping it all within the realm of your own subjective experiences and preferences, but then, it's hardly mine or any atheist's problems that your beliefs are indistinguishable from fantasy.

I have a hard time believing you verify all your memories that you believe in with certainty with some outside source. As well, this can be extended to things like free-will. Do you believe we are unjustified to believe in free-will? It can't be verified outside of personal experience...when a child thanks their mother, are they unjustified because they haven't proven free-will exists?

I think this an absurd position to take.

---

If we take a more scientific approach, sure, it might not seem we have a soul. But who says that must be the approach we take? It seems it is as I said, you are ruling out the experience within and a conclusion of a spiritual nature.

I have yet to see any kind of consensus on how to take a "spiritual approach" or how to confirm that one person's spiritual approach is legitimate or not. The thing is, the scientific approach is another way of saying the scientific method, which was developed in order to remove as many biases, ambiguity, and fallacious reasoning as possible in order to get at the truth of a matter. "Spirituality" is awash in these things, and thus it is impossible to verify any conclusion reached via that approach. Your only option is to accept it on faith or reject it.

They are two completely different ways to explain our experiences and cannot stand on equal footing. When someone devises a reliable way to quantify such experiences, then I'll consider them. Until then the spiritual and supernatural realm remain a place where opinion replaces fact and where desire replaces truth. That's not reliable.

Even if there isn't a consensus on how to approach spirituality, it doesn't follow there is no way to know something via spiritual experience. We accept free-will on faith, doesn't mean it's not knowledge.

[comet]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

past the obvious magic stuff that your average iq-er can see through. I would require a sit down with someone trained in engineering and the sciences (the major 3). "smart" just doesn't cut it anymore. Your average spelling natzie/bible thumper are "smart" but many times it is really is all they have.

[FatAndFaithless]

*surreptitiously hides his grammar Nazi armband*

[Simon Moon]

Even if there isn't a consensus on how to approach spirituality, it doesn't follow there is no way to know something via spiritual experience.

No one has ever been able to give a coherent definition for the term 'spiritual' or 'spirituality'. Are you up to the task?

How would you go about testing whether some knowledge gained through a 'spiritual' experience is true? How could you tell you are not just fooling yourself? How would you know that you are not just misinterpreting some natural brain state?

[Alex K]

Hello all. First time on this forum, would love to discuss atheism.

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

past the obvious magic stuff that your average iq-er can see through. I would require a sit down with someone trained in engineering and the sciences (the major 3). "smart" just doesn't cut it anymore. Your average spelling natzie/bible thumper are "smart" but many times it is really is all they have.

It's "spelling Nazi" though, isn't it?

[JuliaL]

Has anyone on this forum given any thought as to the kind of evidence which would convince you that god exists?

Sure, but I doubt that you'll like my answer.

I presume you're using 'god' in the sense of an ultimately powerful personal being. One who can do pretty much what it likes in any circumstance.

Using that (pretty vague) definition, there is no way that I, so small and meek, could defend my mind against being conned by that being. There could be no way for me to know that I had encountered the real deal rather than an extremely powerful non-god who had clouded my perceptions. The only way that I could, with confidence, tell that I was in the presence of a supreme being would be if I was given powers on parity with that of the being so I could know that I wasn't being hoodwinked. In the absence of this personal upgrade, no evidence will suffice.

So unless you're a god yourself, you can't tell if you're actually in the presence of one. I sort of doubt that the situation will arise.

.

[robvalue]

Very nicely put. I share the same sentiment.

It's like the old saying, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

If I took this iPad into the Stone Age, people would be lining up to suck my dick. (Even more than usual.)