Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[keith99]

There is no problem with the concept.

But like so many other things the devil is in the details.

The idea of an all powerful all benevolent God seems pretty absurd to me considering the state of the world.

But dial back that power and introduce 1 or more other powers of nearly equal strength and perhaps.

But the question remains why do we not see them or at least clear footprints? If it is because of some natural limitations it can be argued they are far from Gods.

 

[Tree of Life]

Because I find a personal god paradoxical, and a watchmaker god is consistent, logically. Plus, we may never know if there is a watchmaker since he would just start the universe and never interact with it again.

What about a personal god do you find paradoxical?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I find the concept implausible. An all knowing all powerful God means that free will is essentially an illusion that we ate unable to see through. It also implies that he created a number of us specifically to disobey know that he would punish us. That doesn't make much sense.

Also, the way God is usually defined precludes any hard evidence as He is commonly explained as residing outside the universe and time and beyond the ability of current (or future) means of direct observation unless He chooses to reveal Himself. Therefore "I don't know" makes more sense than the God concepts presented thus far.

 

[Paulos23]

What about a personal god do you find paradoxical?

It is summed up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

Add in that this is a god that is taking personal attention and action in the world because of people's prayers and actions...and I see nothing like that happening. There are no miricals, even small ones that uphold to examination, there are no sudden changes that can be accounted for prayer alone.

 

[Tree of Life]

It is summed up in the Euthyphro dilemma.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is simple enough. Morality is rooted in the person of God himself. Good behavior imitates God. Therefore it's not a standard outside of God that even he must submit to. But neither is it arbitrary such that it could change on God's slightest whim. It's unchanging -- rooted in his person and character and thus not arbitrary. But it's not an impersonal standard outside of himself.

Dilemma solved in my book.

Add in that this is a god that is taking personal attention and action in the world because of people's prayers and actions...and I see nothing like that happening. There are no miricals, even small ones that uphold to examination, there are no sudden changes that can be accounted for prayer alone.

I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist, but I'll assume that atheism is the "stronger" statement for the purpose of the poll.

I had voted for "Atheist: God makes no sense, and/or is absurd".

Let me be clear, here. I think that there are some clever apologetics, especially coming from Thomas Aquinas, that use the concept "God" as a kind of plug to fill in certain philosophical holes. For instance, you don't know how to explain the existence of motion? Then there is an unmoved mover ("and we call that God!" Ba dum bum.).

But God is unfortunately defined by what he is not -- he is not finite ("infinite"), is not a natural entity ("transcendent"), is not in time ("timeless"), etc. It is not clear at all that any of this makes any kind of rational sense ("just what is God, anyway?"). Any objections of this sort lead to the defense that God is simply above our understanding, in other words, absurd.

So, even though Thomas Aquinas, and perhaps a few other Apologists, are probably geniuses, their arguments ultimately fall flat for me, and degenerate into an absurd conception of God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

God, as in regards to the maker of the universe, makes every bit as much sense as the big bang theory.

Baseless assertions like "gods" always make less sense then scientific theories that are testable, verifiable and are supported by lot's of evidence.

God-dun-it, while not even being able to show that god is real is never a sensible proposition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?

The biblical "accounts" are the claims. They aren't evidence. Evidence of these claims must necessarily be extra-biblical or it's circular reasoning.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I don't know what you mean by "makes sense" exactly. If you're asking me whether I think God is conceivable in my mind and that I could entertain a deity's existence, well sure. I can entertain a lot of things for which I don't think actually exist.

 

[Gottservant]

How much cheese is God's angel wings?

Seriously, sense is something you discuss at the end of a conversation, not in the middle of one.

Unless you want to object that God attacks the possibility of any sense, in which case, show proof.

 

[madaz]

How much cheese is God's angel wings?

Seriously, sense is something you discuss at the end of a conversation, not in the middle of one.

Unless you want to object that God attacks the possibility of any sense, in which case, show proof.

Hi Gotts , Perhaps poolerboy might have been referring to the question in the OP.

"how much sense does God make?"

as opposed to the other question (in the poll)

"How much sense does God as a concept or entity make to you?

Of course mate, I could be wrong.

 

[Tree of Life]

The biblical "accounts" are the claims. They aren't evidence. Evidence of these claims must necessarily be extra-biblical or it's circular reasoning.

The Bible is evidence for my claims that God has moved in history.

Is there extra biblical evidence that the authors of the Bible accurately recorded history? That's a different question.

But the Bible is a fair piece of evidence for my claims of God's work in history.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Bible is evidence for my claims that God has moved in history.

No. Because your god-claims are a direct result of what you (or other people who've told you) read in the bible.

Repeating a claim doesn't turn it into a new claim.

Is there extra biblical evidence that the authors of the Bible accurately recorded history? That's a different question.

No. It's the same question. Every claim in the bible is a claim that requires evidence from outside of the bible.

But the Bible is a fair piece of evidence for my claims of God's work in history.

No. Because your claims come from the bible.

 

[Tree of Life]

No. Because your god-claims are a direct result of what you (or other people who've told you) read in the bible.

What if someone were to ask a question like: "Is there such a person as God and has He made himself known at any time in history?"

How would they answer a question like this? Perhaps they would examine the historical data. If they did they would find a multitude of historical accounts on the subject.

How can this be discounted as evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What if someone were to ask a question like: "Is there such a person as God and has He made himself known at any time in history?"

How would they answer a question like this?

If the one answering the question is a rational and reasonable person, he will answer with "there is no evidence or any data suggesting that such a being exists".

Because claims aren't evidence or data. They are just claims.

Perhaps they would examine the historical data.

But there is no such data... And if you wish to refer to the bible as an example of such "data", then why single out the bible? There's scripture filled with claims of thousands of (mutually exclusive) religions and gods out there.

If they did they would find a multitude of historical accounts on the subject.

No. They'ld find a multitude of claims on the subject. None of which are supported by any evidence.

How can this be discounted as evidence?

Because claims aren't evidence. They are just claims.


Consider this then.... how about asking question about alien abduction? You could point to the MANY people (many of which still live today - you could actually meet up and talk to them) who claim to have been abducted and sexually abused on a space ship. Would you consider that evidence that there is such a thing as aliens and that they visit this planet and abduct people to perform sex experiments on them?

How about bigfoot? The Lochness monster? Elvis still being alive? Bush being a Reptillian from the planet Niburu?

Pointing to people who believe claims without evidence is not evidence that those claims have any truth value.

 

[Tree of Life]

If the one answering the question is a rational and reasonable person, he will answer with "there is no evidence or any data suggesting that such a being exists".

Because claims aren't evidence or data. They are just claims.

Most people feel differently. Anecdotal and personal testimony count as evidence in a court of law. Of course personal testimony and anecdotal evidence should be examined. But especially when two or three witnesses agree about something that happened the evidence can be strong indeed.

I suppose you're equally skeptical of other historical claims? If historical account doesn't count as evidence then you must be skeptical that anything ever happened at all in the ancient world.

But there is no such data... And if you wish to refer to the bible as an example of such "data", then why single out the bible? There's scripture filled with claims of thousands of (mutually exclusive) religions and gods out there.

Sure. There's no obvious reason why the Bible deserves more consideration than other historical claims. All of them deserve some consideration.

No. They'ld find a multitude of claims on the subject. None of which are supported by any evidence.

Again, historical accounts themselves are pieces of evidence. Especially when they're corroborated by multiple historical accounts coming from different parties that say the same thing. Should we look for other evidence? Sure. What kinds of evidence should we look for? That would depend upon the nature of the claim. Is it true, as you say, that there is "no evidence" for any of the Bible's historical claims outside the Bible itself? Not at all.

Consider this then.... how about asking question about alien abduction? You could point to the MANY people (many of which still live today - you could actually meet up and talk to them) who claim to have been abducted and sexually abused on a space ship. Would you consider that evidence that there is such a thing as aliens and that they visit this planet and abduct people to perform sex experiments on them?

How about bigfoot? The Lochness monster? Elvis still being alive? Bush being a Reptillian from the planet Niburu?

Yes these anecdotes are possible pieces of evidence. Now I don't believe in any of these things so I would question the validity of the alleged evidence but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Pointing to people who believe claims without evidence is not evidence that those claims have any truth value.

But the Bible isn't written by those who believe outlandish claims. It's written by those who claim to have seen amazing things.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is simple enough. Morality is rooted in the person of God himself. Good behavior imitates God. Therefore it's not a standard outside of God that even he must submit to. But neither is it arbitrary such that it could change on God's slightest whim. It's unchanging -- rooted in his person and character and thus not arbitrary. But it's not an impersonal standard outside of himself.

Dilemma solved in my book.



I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?

Why dismiss what evidence of miracles? What somebody wrote in a book 2000 years ago?

What if today, in some remote part of the world, a group of several hundred people came forward and claimed their messiah had been crucified and then was risen from the dead a few days later and they all saw him. Would you believe these people?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why dismiss what evidence of miracles? What somebody wrote in a book 2000 years ago?

What if today, in some remote part of the world, a group of several hundred people came forward and claimed their messiah had been crucified and then was risen from the dead a few days later and they all saw him. Would you believe these people?

Their claim would deserve some consideration.

 

[bhsmte]

Their claim would deserve some consideration.

How would you go about considering whether the claim was true?

 

[Tree of Life]

How would you go about considering whether the claim was true?

I would have to analyze it according to my worldview. All of us come to the table with certain commitments and worldviews that tell us how to interpret data. Our commitments give us parameters and tell us what is possible and acceptable.

Having a Christian worldview I would have to analyze the claims in light of scripture.

There's more to say, but I'll start with that.