"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[maddox22]

---

Mao ni problema kung i-base ang existence sa Ginuo through logic.

I don't think God wants us to know and believe Him just because we found a logical proof that He exists. Logic is not and should not be a basis for one's faith in God. Gamay ra'y ligas mawala na sad imo pagtuo.

[bodie]

Mao ni problema kung i-base ang existence sa Ginuo through logic.

I don't think God wants us to know and believe Him just because we found a logical proof that He exists. Logic is not and should not be a basis for one's faith in God. Gamay ra'y ligas mawala na sad imo pagtuo.

Doesnt the fact that "Gamar ra'y ligas mawala na sag imu pagtuo" imply something then? Well, im not saying that its true and all... pero dili sad ingana ka fragile and faith sa uban oi.

[schmuck]

Mao ni problema kung i-base ang existence sa Ginuo through logic.

I don't think God wants us to know and believe Him just because we found a logical proof that He exists. Logic is not and should not be a basis for one's faith in God. Gamay ra'y ligas mawala na sad imo pagtuo.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”- Martin Luther

In the context of this quote, I guess its safe to say, belief in god is unreasonable.
and from your post, implying that god is beyond logic, safe to say, belief in god is illogical.

[mannyamador]

I have. I dont claim to have read all of them, pero generally the argument is like that. Are you saying all of them fail to argue logically? Because I am forwarding the standard argument here.

You misunderstand me I think. I am saying that the claim that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God is just a lame excuse, a cover-up for the fact that they have no basis for their claim. To say that the atheist position is impossible to prove and therefore the burden of proof is on theists is ridiculous and illogical.

Some other atheists, however, have realized this truth and have tried to lend some credibility to the atheist position by actually arguing that God does not/cannot exist. Since I am a theist I obviously do not agree with their arguments, but their efforts are certainly more honest, more admirable (at least as an intellectual exercise), and at least are not lame excuses for not giving proof.

From where I (and a whole lot of other people) are standing it is the logical assumption. Unfounded due to lack of evidence to the contrary, yes. Irrational and baseless... no.

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there are a lot of theists (I think mostly of the Protestant tradition) who also claim a priori that the existence of God cannot be proven. Some even see the idea of proving God's existence as blasphemous. Now, if we follow your logic then, the burden of proof is on your side again -- or nowhere -- since it impossible (and useless to try) to prove the existence of God. Your above claim then -- that it is a logical assumption and not irrational and baseless -- therefore applies to the theist position as well.

Now where does that leave us? With a silly and irrational discussion, really. The only way to carry on such a debate then is to reject the a priori claim that it it impossible to prove one position or the other. But if we insist on sticking to it, then what's the point of this or any discussion on the rationality or basis of God's existence/non-existence? Dawkins' book (and those that refute it, as well as any book on this matter) would be a total waste of time.

And again, I will tell you that it is just one of the arguments. Keep in mind that this argument is primarily a philosophical question dealing with intangible things. You seem convinced with the arguments given in defence, we are convinced on the rightness of our own arguments. With regards to questions such as these, nobody wins. There is always a reason why they are "correct". Tangible things are more conclusive, thats why there are other arguments other than this one.

You lost me there. By "this is just one of the arguments" are you referring to the a priori claim that the non-existence of God cannot be proven? Or were you referring to something else?

If your willing to stay and keep on topic, I will be glad to give you a summary of the arguments for the atheist position given by Dawkins in his book. All I ask is that you keep an open mind.

If you have a copy of the book, that would be better. Or even a link to an online version will do. It's not that I don't want you to give a summary, but then I would be basing any of my comments on the summaries only.

The correctness of the premise appears to be a fundamental belief on your, just as the incorrectness of the premise is a fundamental point on my side. Arguing about it probably wont change anything.

It's not a matter of belief; it's logic. See it this way: You either affirm that there are some contingent beings or that all beings are necessary. The latter is obviously false since beings can go out of existence or depend on others at least in some way for their existence, so there must be contingent beings. But if they are ALL contingent, how do they get their necessity? That is the fundamental question.

From there theists will show a process of some kind/form that argues that there must be then at least a Necessary Being (some might even argue that there must be at least one, but may admit the existence of more than one).

Also, read the book if you can. Theists have often commented that it just shows how delusional atheists are.

On the theists' claims, are you referring the the book, "The Dawkins Delusion"?

[mannyamador]

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”- Martin Luther

Martin Luther?!!! In my personal opinion, he was a nutcase. In any case, I certainly do NOT agree with many of his beliefs or claims.

His positions on a great many things do NOT reflect the beliefs of the great majority of Christians. Not of most theists either.

[bodie]

You misunderstand me I think. I am saying that the claim that atheists cannot prove the non-existence of God is just a lame excuse, a cover-up for the fact that they have no basis for their claim. To say that the atheist position is impossible to prove and therefore the burden of proof is on theists is ridiculous and illogical.

Thats your opinion, others clearly disagree with you on that point, but lets leave it at that.

Some other atheists, however, have realized this truth and have tried to lend some credibility to the atheist position by actually arguing that God does not/cannot exist. Since I am a theist I obviously do not agree with their arguments, but their efforts are certainly more honest, more admirable (at least as an intellectual exercise), and at least are not lame excuses for not giving proof.

Depending on the argument, the arguments are an exercise in logic. One of the arguments starts from pascals wager. Im not claiming that pascals wager is a valid theist belief, but one of the many arguments against the existence of god starts from that.

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there are a lot of theists (I think mostly of the Protestant tradition) who also claim a priori that the existence of God cannot be proven. Some even see the idea of proving God's existence as blasphemous. Now, if we follow your logic then, the burden of proof is on your side again -- or nowhere -- since it impossible (and useless to try) to prove the existence of God. Your above claim then -- that it is a logical assumption and not irrational and baseless -- therefore applies to the theist position as well.

I am honestly baffled why the burden of proof suddenly falls to my side based on the argument that it is impossible to prove the existence of god. In the first place, why is it impossible to prove the existence of god? A miracle (pre-determined ahead of time if possible) in front of out eyes that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is only one explanation will do. Something we can see and verify will prove it quite nicely. Something like... exploding the moon and reforming it in front of our very eyes. Anything so impossible that there is only one explanation (that it is an act of god) will do.

And regarding the protestant position, sorry, but it sounds like stonewalling to me. It merely prevents/strongly suggests to protestants who follow that from arguing the point. The rest of us dont fall under that.

Now where does that leave us? With a silly and irrational discussion, really. The only way to carry on such a debate then is to reject the a priori claim that it it impossible to prove one position or the other. But if we insist on sticking to it, then what's the point of this or any discussion on the rationality or basis of God's existence/non-existence? Dawkins' book (and those that refute it, as well as any book on this matter) would be a total waste of time.

The point is to find fertile ground that will enable us to begin an earnest discussion. Unless we can agree on something as a starting point, then the discussion wont be going anywhere.

You lost me there. By "this is just one of the arguments" are you referring to the a priori claim that the non-existence of God cannot be proven? Or were you referring to something else?

Nope. I was referring to your co-existence argument.

If you have a copy of the book, that would be better. Or even a link to an online version will do. It's not that I don't want you to give a summary, but then I would be basing any of my comments on the summaries only.

Ill send a PM.

It's not a matter of belief; it's logic. See it this way: You either affirm that there are some contingent beings or that all beings are necessary. The latter is obviously false since beings can go out of existence or depend on others at least in some way for their existence, so there must be contingent beings. But if they are ALL contingent, how do they get their necessity? That is the fundamental question.

From there theists will show a process of some kind/form that argues that there must be then at least a Necessary Being (some might even argue that there must be at least one, but may admit the existence of more than one).

Regarding that, I suggest looking at David Humes arguments on the cosmological argument. Admittedly, the argument of Hume is still being debated, but he points out some interesting critiques in the steps used to arrive at the conclusion.

Personally, I follow the non-sequitor argument. Posting it verbatim since in it explains the argument better.

A logical objection to the argument from contingency is that the argument makes a logical fallacy called Non-sequitur since it makes a false conclusion that "since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist". It is a false conclusion because from the (merely logical) contingency of anything it does not logically follow that there must be some time at which – the merely logically (not empirically) contingent – things, like for example matter, in fact did not exist (in order to prove that matter did need to have a cause outside itself).

On the theists' claims, are you referring the the book, "The Dawkins Delusion"?

Nah, just some choice comments from here and there. PZ Myers at pharyngula has a nice collection.

[mannyamador]

I am honestly baffled why the burden of proof suddenly falls to my side based on the argument that it is impossible to prove the existence of god. In the first place, why is it impossible to prove the existence of god?

Well, that's YOUR logic being applied here. And I would also ask you the same questions:

• Why would the burden of proof suddenly be on the theist side based on the argument that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God?
  
  
• Why is it impossible to prove the non-existence of God?

It goes both ways.

Anything so impossible that there is only one explanation (that it is an act of god) will do.

The shows of force or power you gave as examples not prove the existence of God in my opinion. One can always posit some other power to do the "miracle". A sufficiently advanced civilization with powers to control matter within a very large area, for example. If a bigger miracle is needed, just enlarge the area of their effectiveness.

And regarding the protestant position, sorry, but it sounds like stonewalling to me. It merely prevents/strongly suggests to protestants who follow that from arguing the point.

And that's precisely what I can say about the atheist a priori claim that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God. Its just stonewalling.

Regarding that, I suggest looking at David Humes arguments on the cosmological argument. Admittedly, the argument of Hume is still being debated, but he points out some interesting critiques in the steps used to arrive at the conclusion.

Hume was one of the positions I studied for my thesis on the existence of God. There were seven others I had to refute as well. Gee, that was 25 years ago! I should dig it up from all my stored stuff.

Personally, I follow the non-sequitor argument. Posting it verbatim since in it explains the argument better.

Non-sequitur since it makes a false conclusion that "since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist".

Hold on. If you look at one of my earlier posts, I specifically stated that I have no problem with the idea that the universe always existed. It does not matter to the argument from contingency. Even if the beings in the universe are contingent, they do not ALL have to cease to exist at the same time.

The non-sequitur argument is actually a strawman argument. That is because the argument from contingency does NOT (I repeat NOT) require that at one time nothing existed. It is about contingency of beings, not whether the collective of beings at one time did not exist. Like I said above, not all contingent beings would have had to cease to exist at the same time for the argument to work.

Therefore, whether the universe always existed or not is irrelevant to the argument from contingency. Existence in time does not necessarily confer necessity. The first point of the argument from contingency is that the beings in the universe cannot ALL be necessary since we do find that some beings cease to exist at some time or are dependent in some way on other beings for their existence.

But neither can they ALL be contingent. The collective of all beings, the universe, however, could have always been and could always be. But it still lacks necessity in and of itself. So there must be at least one Necessary Being.

I will grant, however, that there have been some authors who have stated the theist argument from contingency very badly or in a misleading manner. This may have led some to make the non-sequitur argument and to believe that it refutes the argument from contingency. That is a failing in communication, I suppose, of some theist authors. But since we are discussing (or debating) an issue, it would be best to refute the strongest version of an opposing argument. That would be my course.

[bodie]

Sigh, browser crashed while I was finishing the post. Ill get back to you on that tomorrow night manny.

[maddox22]

Sigh, browser crashed while I was finishing the post. Ill get back to you on that tomorrow night manny.

Sign from God? hahahaha! joke!

[maddox22]

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God”- Martin Luther

In the context of this quote, I guess its safe to say, belief in god is unreasonable.
and from your post, implying that god is beyond logic, safe to say, belief in god is illogical.

The word 'illogical' does not mean 'beyond logic'. The prefix 'il' means 'not'. The word 'illogical' means 'not logical'.

Is God a logical being? Oh yes. But His logic is way way beyond our logic. Right now, no human can even be near the premise of His logic. Why? Look around. What do we have? We don't have complete knowledge of things. Although science is progressing and the human race discovers new things everyday, I strongly believe even in a million years or more man, in his power, still cannot fully discover everything about God.

So you, my friend, with your very finite and incomplete logic, should not rely your belief in a God basing from what you conclude by reason and logic. Because you may probably be good in your class or possess a higher than average IQ or even be a genius, but it doesn't mean your logic is not susceptible to error.

What if you're wrong with your reasoning about God's existence?

Like I said, and I will always always say, if you want to KNOW if God exists, ask Him. Pray. But when you do, be neutral. Don't be biased on either way first. And be sincere in your heart.

Just try it. If you receive an answer in your heart that there will be no doubt in your mind that He exists, then you know that He indeed exists. If after being sincere and neutral, you don't receive an answer, then you would know He doesn't exist and you were praying to no one after all. Unsa ma'y mawala kung imo nang buhaton?

That's the only way one can know if God exists or not. Not human logic because how fragile and unstable is our logic?

I testify that He exists. I have prayed and asked Him, because I too have had doubts before if there really is a God. It came to the point that everything I did and everything I encountered everyday the question comes to my mind if He really exists or maybe I was mislead by my parents, friends, teachers, etc... And do they really know the God exists. How can they be sure?

I reasoned to myself and looked for evidence or proof whether He exists or not. And almost everything I see tells me that He doesn't. With all the wars, hunger, crime, death, calamities, injustice, corrupt people getting away, good people suffering, etc... All these tells me there couldn't be a Supreme Being watching over.

I thought if there is a God then I have responsibilities towards myself, others, and to Him. I have a future to think about past this life. If there was no God, then I don't have any future past this life to think about. And everything I do now doesn't really matter except for the immediate consequence the belongs to this life.

But I also realized that if I form a conclusion just from the things I see around me or what logical proof I can obtain, then I would be using my own logic. But what if I'm wrong? What if my calculations or analysis missed something - a tinnie winnie bit - and I formed the wrong conclusion?

Fortunately someone told me the very simple thing I needed to do to know if there really is a God and that is to pray. Ask God Himself if He exists and if He is really there. I thought it's a weird thing to do because I could be praying to no one after all. But anyway, I thought ok wala man say mawala nako if ako nang buhatun. So I did. And doing so I remained neutral and unbiased. After I prayed I waited for an answer.

I testify to you my bros here in istorya specially to those who are in doubt and to those who think that there is no God. I testify that there is a God. My prayer was answered. There was no dramatic sign or vision, but there was a peaceful and undeniable feeling in my heart that He assured me the He is there and He loves me and He loves us all. I felt it and I couldn't deny it. My whole existence knew that there is a God and no logical proof can surpass the evidence that I felt in my heart.

That's why I encourage you to try what I did if you really want to know if He is there. With all these debate and reasoning and searching for logical proof about His existence, you can never attain full knowledge or reach a satisfactory answer. "From simple things shall great things come to pass."