Philosophy Now Forum

meryljuans wrote:This is supported by W.K.Clifford, an evidentialist, who believes that it is immoral and wrong to accept a belief for which one has insufficient evidence.

no one up-to-date has solid proof evidence that indeed there is God,

Moreover, you may disagree and states that a belief that God exists is due to experience or intuition. To answer to this, let’s say I met a unicorn and this meeting had positive effects in my life, therefore, I would believe in it. But this does not claim a sufficient evidence to warrant the universal acceptance of my belief.

Furthermore, how can you trust your feeling that “God” exists since human can even ‘cheat’ their feelings to each

meryljuans wrote:Hello everyone! Would you guys mind helping me and give constructive comments on whether my argument basis is strong enough to handle a class debate? Thank you very much.


I believe that it is irrational to believe that God exists without evidence. This is supported by W.K.Clifford, an evidentialist, who believes that it is immoral and wrong to accept a belief for which one has insufficient evidence. In this case, no one up-to-date has solid proof evidence that indeed there is God, the idea that in the same category with invincible dragons (highly implausible), by scientific or logical means.

This means that those who believe that God exists, is merely an illusion or figment of our imagination. In addition, if one claims to know anything about God would because the pseudoscience of god is using his/her imagination and personal perspective as well as interpretation by others or the brain itself.

I will support my argument by giving ‘unintelligent design’ argument:
1) If there’s omnipotent God, we would be very intelligently designed.
2) Not everyone is intelligently designed. (such as physical disability since birth)
Conclusion: there is no such thing as an omnipotent God.

You may argue that people have speculations or the bible says so, but I beg to differ. We need cold, hard evidence. Although the bible was well written, it is not a contemporary report of Christ. It cannot be confirmed with factual evidence. You need faith to believe it and faith is not evidence. Thus, since we can’t prove God’s existence, is it right for anyone to have so much faith and belief on something so questionable?

Moreover, you may disagree and states that a belief that God exists is due to experience or intuition. To answer to this, let’s say I met a unicorn and this meeting had positive effects in my life, therefore, I would believe in it. But this does not claim a sufficient evidence to warrant the universal acceptance of my belief. Furthermore, how can you trust your feeling that “God” exists since human can even ‘cheat’ their feelings to each other. Thus, experience as well as intuition do not count as “proof and validation” of the objects of one’s faith.

The crux of the argument would be that the particular God in question, if He proves that He exists:
1) Knows what kind of evidence would convince us.
2) Could produce such evidence were He sufficiently motivated to do so.
Taking all these into account, God is either does not exist or just insufficiently motivated to make one believe that He does. This lead to a question that: If God exists, why He doesn’t prove so? Why He leaves us without any compelling existence of His existence?

In sum, it is irrational to believe that God exists with insufficient evidence that we have. What if he’s just an imaginary being that our brain has created and leads to false consensus effect to those who believe?

MGL wrote:To play the devil's advocate in God's defence:

1) If you defining rationality in purely logical and empirical terms then your argument is sound. But if a belief in God has a practical benefit for the person believing it, then from a practical perspective it is rational. What you have to argue then is that 1) there is positive evidence that God does not exist and 2) this evidence is sufficiently compelling to override any practical benefit from believing the contrary. Alternatively you could try and persuade a believer that their belief actually serves no practical benefit, but that could probably only be achieved by demonstrating there is no life after death, which might be difficult.

He was asking you to assess the benefits of a false belief. The question asks about "existence", and thus is only epistemological.

2) A religious person might agree with everything you said on how they come to believe in God, but simply point out that those causes were ultimately God's way of causing us to believe in him as he realised himself that he could not prove to anyone that he existed. Of course he could reveal himself and say he was God, but why would you believe he was anything more than just a very powerful superhero?

Most Christians believe exactly that. What is your point?

Kayla wrote:

meryljuans wrote:This is supported by W.K.Clifford, an evidentialist, who believes that it is immoral and wrong to accept a belief for which one has insufficient evidence.

and what evidence does WK have to support this belief?

What evidence have you got that your question is meaningful or relevant?

i think the expression is hoisted with one's own petard

I think two can play at that game.

no one up-to-date has solid proof evidence that indeed there is God,

correct

what if anything follows from that

That the idea of God must be a fantasy, obviously. Because it is based on wishes and not evidence.

Moreover, you may disagree and states that a belief that God exists is due to experience or intuition. To answer to this, let’s say I met a unicorn and this meeting had positive effects in my life, therefore, I would believe in it. But this does not claim a sufficient evidence to warrant the universal acceptance of my belief.

correct

hence Christ's statement that those who are not against us are with us (mark 9:40)

Typical - taking a statement out of context.. Jesus meant that people who cast out devil's were working on his side. There is nothing to suggest he meant anymore than that. This would imply that ANYONE who casts out devils is a Christian.

there is no philosophical or biblical justification for condemning those who hold different metaphysical beliefs

Haaaaaa. Trying reading the fucking bible sometime! You might have to take your head out of your arse first though.

Mark 6:11 "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Maybe a bit of Luke? 10:10 "But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city"

You might like to try the Old Testament too, where God exhorts the Jews to genocide - oh but leave the virgins alive.


if believing in the flying spaghetti monster does it for you it is the height of lunacy to suggest that some other god is so insecure as to be mad at your for that

Something tells me you don't get the point of the FSM.

Furthermore, how can you trust your feeling that “God” exists since human can even ‘cheat’ their feelings to each

humans can likewise pick and choose their facts and their logic based on things that are neither factual nor logical

we cannot perfectly use reason or logic

that is not a reason to not use them

we cannot have perfectly reliable intuitions

that is no reason to entirely reject intuitions

chaz wyman wrote:

Kayla wrote:

meryljuans wrote:This is supported by W.K.Clifford, an evidentialist, who believes that it is immoral and wrong to accept a belief for which one has insufficient evidence.

and what evidence does WK have to support this belief?

What evidence have you got that your question is meaningful or relevant?

Kayla wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
What evidence have you got that your question is meaningful or relevant?

MGL wrote:meryljuans: it is irrational to believe that God exists without evidence
===================================================

Chaz: He was [not?] asking you to assess the benefits of a false belief. The question asks about "existence", and thus is only epistemological.

MGL: I am questioning the meaning of "irrational" in the context of applying it to "belief".
I was not assessing the benefits of a false belief. I was assessing the criteria of what makes a belief rational - whether it is a true OR a false belief. One set of criteria is to judge it purely on logical and empirical grounds. Another criteria is to judge it on practical grounds. If the belief judged on the latter criteria proves beneficial then I see no reason why it cannot be considered as rational.

Chaz: Most Christians believe exactly that. ( God is just a powerful superhero ) What is your point?

MGL: I suspect that most Christians believe God is more than just a very powerful superhero. It might be difficult for us atheists and agnostics to see the difference but I think we should be charitable and allow them to assure us there is. It is their belief - and not ours after all.

MGL wrote:Chaz: I disagree - when you boil it all down Xians think of their God as a SH.

MGL: yes, but not JUST as a superhero. A superhero that created the world and one that decides your fate in the afterlife, and perhaps continues to interfere in the physical world


Chaz: But one that tends to ignore their entreaties.
They do not seem to be aware of the gross inconsistencies, as pointed out by those such as Spinoza, that an all powerful thing cannot be limited to listening to appellant prayer, nor would such an entity perform cheap miracles, of the sort Xians commonly believe in.

MGL: most maybe aware of gross inconsistencies, but I suspect I and many other atheists and agnostics are unaware of inconsistencies in our own beliefs. But some are aware of the inconsistencies and spend their lives developing a theology to reconcile them.

Luckily being an atheist does not involve me in any belief.

Chaz: An omnipotent being cannot want these things, it cannot want for anything.

MGL: assuming you are just not playing with two different senses of "want" here I guess you are suggesting that an omnipotent being cannot really want anything because its desires would be satisfied the moment they are conceived. There would be no distinction between having the desire and satisfying it. I agree with you, but I can imagine a theology which posits the desire of God to play a game ( the physical world ) where he is not omnipotent. He creates beings in this game with free-will and by doing so voluntarily suspends his power to control everthing. If he is all-powerful why could he not have the power to suspend this omnipotence within the bounds of a word he has created? Is there anything inconsistent in this?

MGL wrote:Chaz: Creating a being with free-will is an abrogation of his omnipotence - so yet another contradiction.
This is totally inconsistent.
A suspension of power is definitively not omnipotence, it is a limitation. Answering a prayer implies that god changes his mind - as if he did not know the outcome already.
Spinoza is the only philosopher who answers this problem.



MGL: Of course if you choose to define omnipotence so strictly then you will find contradictions. But theologians would simply define and limit omnipotence so it that would not imply any contradictions. Thus, they would not allow God the power do things which would defy logic for instance, but they might allow him the power to suspend his power within an object of his own creation - the physical world. This might involve a contradiction given yours and Spinoza's notion of omnipotence, but not theirs.

MGL wrote:Chaz: Creating a being with free-will is an abrogation of his omnipotence - so yet another contradiction.
This is totally inconsistent.
A suspension of power is definitively not omnipotence, it is a limitation. Answering a prayer implies that god changes his mind - as if he did not know the outcome already.
Spinoza is the only philosopher who answers this problem.



MGL: Of course if you choose to define omnipotence so strictly then you will find contradictions. But theologians would simply define and limit omnipotence so it that would not imply any contradictions. Thus, they would not allow God the power do things which would defy logic for instance, but they might allow him the power to suspend his power within an object of his own creation - the physical world. This might involve a contradiction given yours and Spinoza's notion of omnipotence, but not theirs.