How do you know god exsists?
Debate Rounds (5)
Hey there, i was just having a conversation with my friend and starting wondering, how do you know there is such thing as a man called "God" who walked on this earth? excuse me an entity? i mean there is no proven fact there is such thing, people beleive in the Book, people beleive in what other people are saying. its like saying, "hey look, that guy just died. you cant see him but he did" and your all like yeah i beleive that. if god exsisted then why would he put us through this, why would he give us different choices into what to beleive? if he was real why wouldn't he revel himself? why wouldnt he let his creations know he was alive? its just confusing, why would he give people this impretion of himself. this just shows to me and no offence intended people, but why is he hiding like a coward?. any answer?
Atheists already deny that there is any need for us to have it be that a god exists. But, assuming, for sake of our thought processes, that some god exists, what good could it really do for us for that god to 'get all in our faces' all the time? Here's an analogy:
Suppose there is a being who is infinite, and who appears to you and says to you, "I am infinite, and you must believe that I am infinite." Can you, a presumably merely finite being, actually directly know that that self-named 'infinite being' is, in fact, infinite?
There is a clever atheist argument about supposedly how to is possible to win a game of 'chicken' against an omniscient (i.e, all-knowing) being. That argument goes like this:
"In the famous game of chicken, two drivers hurtle their cars toward each
other, and the one who turns away at the last minute loses. Or they collide,
and both lose even bigger, or they both swerve and have reciprocal embarrassment.
Before you play this game, you might make a matrix of your actions (stay the
course vs. swerve) against the opponent's actions (same two choices), and see
what happens with the four different possible outcomes. But then imagine that
your opponent is omniscient. He knows just what you are going to do.
Surprisingly, this restricts the results of the game in unexpected ways so that
you cannot lose. If your opponent is omniscient, all you have to do is to stay
the course. He will know that you are not going to swerve, and (assuming that
he does not want a collision), he will have to be the one to do the swerving
But, in order for the thought experiment implied by that argument actually to 'work as advertised', a number of requisite 'external factors' first must work. Perhaps the conceptually simplest of such factors is this: "How can you actually know that the being playing the game is omniscient? If you can't actually know this, then how can you know that it is an omniscient being with whom you are playing the game?"
A less-simple factor is as to just what all omniscience implies. For example, does omniscience imply that an omniscient being knows how to make you change your mind by revealing something to you that, in its being revealed to you, you decide that its strictly foolish to try to play a game of chicken with an actually omniscient being? For another example, does omniscience imply that the omniscient being, by virtue of knowing everything, knows some other, even-more-obscure-to-us, way to win the game?
After all, what is the game itself supposed to prove, anyway? I mean, forget about the whole god and omniscience things for a moment: what does the game of chicken, in any case, actually prove?
And, is it basically a game of chicken for us to demand that a god prove its existence to us?
i know its more of a "self consious" thing cause you want to have a god, but why would beleive in something that that there is no proof in? i mean wouldnt you wanna know if your so called god was actually real?. i only dont beleive in god, because people say he will apper someday, but why hasnt he come, why did he just leave. why would he let his son die on the cross?. why does he let all this happen?
Everyone believes in things they have only a little evidence to support. For example, in particle physics, physicists hotly debate each other over some theoretical particle that some of them think up to fill a gap in the current theory of physics. This example means that gaps we find in our understanding of ourselves and of the world actually demands that we try to think of things that seem to fill those gaps. Our theories about history often must make use of really old documents which seem to be records of history. But, we weren’t there when those old documents were written, so we have to think up theories which seem to explain at least some of the old documents that exist. These documents count as evidence. But, the problem is what that evidence really means: who wrote it and why. But, we were not there when those documents were written, so we have to figure out what they mean. Some really old documents seem to be about some particular god. Those documents are one of several kinds of evidence by which we can figure out if that particular god exists or does not exist.
Why a god would leave is for a similar reason for why a god is not ‘in our faces’ all the time: we can’t know directly that a god is, say, infinite. In some real sense, we are not infinite, so how can we actually prove that someone is infinite who himself claims to be infinite? In fact, who cares about if a god is infinite if that god is some arrogant tyrant. So, for a god to be worth believing in, that god must, among other things, be a god that works with our sense of right and wrong, not against our sense of right and wrong. To have a god who is worth believing in, that god first must not treat us as if our sense of right and wrong does not matter. Atheists already think that gods do not matter, since we already have a sense of right and wrong.
But, why would a god let his son die? I think we could ask why would a god let anyone die? I think part of a logical answer to both questions is that we humans are like a sewer pipe that gets backed up in the middle of the night so that the sewage fills the house. In other words, we let bad things happen to other people so we can get what we want, even though we will die in the end anyway. So, a god would let his own son die on a cross so we could see where the door is at night so we can get out of the house and call a plumber.
Again, why would a god let his son die on a cross? Let me answer that with a story followed by a question.
Imagine if you are lost on desert-world that seems to have no water. Luckily, you find a deep-worn track in the hard-rock and sand-dune landscape. This track might be a kind of road: made by many feet that had walked to where some water is. So, you walk this track, hoping it is a road. But, then a dense sandstorm comes up, and you are caught in the sandstorm so you can’t see very far ahead of where you are walking. After a while of walking on this track in the sandstorm, you see a mound of rocks that’s been very carefully stacked off to the side of the track. Now you are sure that the track is a road, and that it leads to water. But, the track soon goes down over a cliff, and you cannot climb down the cliff in the sandstorm. So, you go back to the stack of rocks to hide behind it from the sand storm, to wait for the storm to pass. But, just as you sit down behind the stack of rocks, you see through the storm to another stack of rocks that’s further away from the track. You could not see that second stack from the track in the storm, but you could see the first stack.
Here’s the question: Do you get up and go see what that second stack is doing there?
Well no only an idiot would get up through a sandstorm lol, let me ask you this, would you?
why would you
and why do you beleive in god do you just want to beleive that he is the reason were here?
without proof of why your here in the first place?
it makes no sense. in my mind i want to know why we are put on this earth, we kill this earth and then die.
whyod would do this to us? why he would give us so many other religions to beleive in other then him?
if he was real dont you think hed want us to know he was? not just beleive he was?
Perhaps I was not specific enough about that sandstorm story. My point of adding the storm to the story was simply to reduce the distance of visibility to much less than clear atmosphere. I was not invoking the kind of storm that made it too much to ask anyone to get out into it. The locale in which you are caught in the storm is entirely open landscape: nothing to shelter you from it except your own clothing and luggage. The strength of, and pain from, the storm is not anywhere near enough to drive you mad. And, as I imply it to be, the presence of the storm is a problem mainly because it obscures visibility and makes directionally intelligent travel very difficult (you can’t easily get or keep your bearings).
So, why do I believe in God?
Many atheists wish to think that belief that a god exists is, in most or every case, a weak and mentally lazy psychological convenience; a wholly immature ‘security’ blanket. Such thinking certainly is not without evidence. There even is a lot of motive, on the part of a lot of people, to not believe in a god. After all, motive is a key to our reasoning, to our sense of the power of logic to prove or disprove whatever we feel we need to prove or disprove, and to the monopoly which that logic then seems to us naturally to have in making sense of whatever is evident to our senses (of which, say, paranoid scizophrenia is an extreme negative example).
But, I get that you find the existence of so many points of view about the very idea of god makes that idea false, since there is no god standing around as editor to the potential expressions of those views. Any theist, it seems, is free to make as many converts to his own view of God as he has the ego or intellect to get away with.
Moreover, any ego involved in all the different views within atheism are, for many people, the lesser evil to that of theistic ego: arrogant uses of atheistic ideas does not attempt expressly to coopt (most of) the positive ‘instinct’ which most people have in relation to the god-concept.
So, for many people, the upside of atheism suits them as much as the down-side of theism offends their humanity. I think of this as atheism proper, which, as I hope you agree, is both very simple and very complex.
So, again, why do I believe in God? My answer is both simple and complex, and it has very little to do with what you are calling ‘belief’.
But, I’m one of those persons who has great difficulty actually coming up with anything resembling what most people think of as any kind of summary about anything, whether a good summary or a bad summary. But, maybe this will help:
Given the complexity of the Cosmos, and of the contingent observer, it is axiomatic that the obverse of the law of identity includes a complex reverse: a thing not only is only what it is, it also is not all those things which it is not. I call this ‘coin’ the Axiom of Identity.
But, given the possible combinations of knowledge and ignorance regarding a given topic, any number of various conflations of the two sides of this Axiom of Identity is possible regarding that topic. Further, given the extent of ignorance possible regarding a topic, the extent of this conflation can be so deep as to allow the conflating person a virtually unlimited body of 'logic' upon which to confirm for his own ‘logic’ the sense that his favored position is sound.
Worse, the more a priori is a particular logical sensibility, the easier to so forget it as to fail to invoke it when it is most pertinent. In other words, the a priori requires so little neurological energy to maintain that it easily can become obscured-to-unimportance-or-worse when we think we are successfully facing at least some of the high-energy tasks which our practical, and even adversarial, lives demand. Abraham Lincoln said that the test of a man’s character is not in how much suffering he can endure, but in how much power he can rightly make use of.
But, while ‘logic’ is a power to prove things, it is only in what a man most values that guides all his logic. So, we humans have a genuine problem in rightly handling anything by which we get a sense of ‘power’ over our ‘wayward’ fellows.
In short, it’s too easy for us to be patronizingly skeptical not only of another’s words, and not only of their intelligence, but of their sense of themselves in face of us. If we can bring it about that we think they are feeling ‘insecure’, frustrated, or intimidated by our words, we too easily estimate ourselves as not only having correctly identified their sense of themselves in relation to our logic, but of being more humane and loving than they. I’ve had so much of that patronizing from some Christians that I could scream ‘til I go deaf.
But, my best attempt at a summary of why I reject atheism as being ‘irrational for my own mind’, that is, as being ‘inconsistent with what I know and with what I have reason to think I know’, is, in its own extremely over-simplistic way, like I would reject the point of view of the man in the following funny story.
A man in an all-you-can-eat, all-soup restaurant orders what he calls an ‘empty bowl of soup':
Waitress: 'Sir, do you want that without the soup, then?'
Man: 'No, I want that with the soup.'
Waitress: 'So, you want a bowl of soup, then?'
Man: 'No, I want an empty bowl of soup.'
Waitress: 'An empty bowl?'
Man: 'No, an empty bowl of soup.'
Waitress: 'I'm sorry sir, I'm not sure I understand. Do you want a bowl with soup in it, or a bowl without the soup?'
Man: 'No. I want a bowl of soup, but I want the bowl to be empty.'
Waitress: 'Then, how do you want the soup? In a cup, perhaps?'
Man: 'No, I don’t want any soup. I want an empty bowl of soup.'
Waitress: 'I can give you an empty bowl, if you like.'
Waitress: 'Sir, our bowls start out empty, and then we put soup in them. We could pour out the soup after putting soup in one, and give you the bowl?'
That poor waitress is thinking, Either this man is simply playing a game of semantics, …or he is maybe trying to prove that we don’t actually serve soup here. ...Or, maybe he’s sending a clever message that he doesn’t like our soup. ...Or, maybe he’s an idiot-savant who has too little sense of how natural language works---in which case he may well be trying to figure out, say, how to communicate that he wants soup in a bowl but wants to be sure that it is empty and clean before we put soup in it.
But, as it happens, this man is none other than the ‘Soup Nazi’ from the TV sitcom, Seinfeld, and he’s making every effort to prove that what this all-you-can-eat soup restaurant calls ‘soup’ is not his soup, and, therefore, no part of which ever should be eaten.
Emmal26054 forfeited this round.
Anyone forfeited this round.
Emmal26054 forfeited this round.
Anyone forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.