Well, depends on how you look at it. Over-writing what little knowledge you have of existence with the idea of an all-powerful deity I would call brainwashing. I've always calld organized religion brainwashing, I see if every time I go to mass. We have a special collection just for kids (as young as infants), and I call that brainwashing or indoctrination into giving money to the Church.

And I don't think this has been said yet, but at the earliest roots, religion came about to explain the "supernatural", or simply things we didn't understand. Why does the sun rise every day? Oh, the Sun God must be watching over us. Why do our crops grow? Oh, the Earth Godess must be watching over us. Relgion was there to fill the gaps not yet filled by science.

I think that you're confused. It's illogical to assume that something doesn't exist when it's possible that it does. I realize that you're trying to be humorous with your examples, but they're bad ones due to the fact that they're impossible. The things that you mentioned would exist within our realm of existence. A creator is possible because it may exist outside of our universe.



Your opinion appears to be invalid. Please prove your point.



Your opinion here is invalid. Just because it's possible that the universe could exist without a creator, doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm having a difficult time understanding what it is that you're missing.



Making assumptions when there are other possibilities isn't logical at all. Ask yourself this very basic question: If we were to live in a self-contained universe, and the creator of that universe existed outside of our realm of existence, would there be any evidence? It's quite possible that there wouldn't be. Your so-called "empirical evidence" only applies to things that happen according to our scientific laws. Is it not possible that a creator can exist outside of our universe and that it hasn't meddled in our affairs since creation? I think so. I would also like to add that "reason" may only apply to our way of thinking, and if something exists outside of our universe, it may very well be limited reason.

I agree with JediKirby "10 fold" regarding his statements on logic and with Emon regarding his statements regarding brainwashing.



Is it not possible that you were brainwashed to not feel like it was being forced upon you? I was raised in a Pentecostal cult, and I can say for sure that this was the case for me. To this day I have difficulty with what I've been forced to believe. Please don't take offense, I don't know you and am simply asking whether or not that you've considered this.

JediGandalf: He's not saying that it's impossible, he's saying that it's illogical to believe it without evidence and that there hasn't been any to prove it.



I disagree. I believe that these threads turn in to flame wars because certain individuals enjoy flame wars or simple have little patience for people that don't believe as they do. It's quite possible to have intellectual discussions regarding these matters without a flame war, just maybe not at Massassi, due to certain personalities. It's often difficult for Athiests and Christians to get along, despite the fact that religion and the lack thereof have nothing to do with any of this.

A child is a blank slate, they don't have any beliefs other than ones based on purely instinctual (I believe that I don't want to die). The initial education cannot possibly be brainwashing because the slate is already clean. Convincing a well-reasoning person to go against what they know for no good reason, THAT'S brainwashing.

I was raised by religious parents, and by the time my brother and I were able to really think about things, we had doubts. This is how most people are, the brainwashing only comes if those doubts are squished in some way. If you punish someone for daring to think for themselves, that's probably how brainwashing starts.

So "Believe in this or you'll go to hell" doesn't count a brainwashing?

It's actually taught as "You're going to hell unless you believe in this". Subtle difference.

Wow, way to totally miss the rest of my post! It's rather simple, if you decide to apply logic to the belief in a deity, you find that there is no more reason to exclude other supernatural beings with just as much physical evidence, this includes pixies, fairies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the deities of every single religion to have ever existed. That's why the initial skeptical starting point should be to assume that a God does not exist until given proof otherwise.

It doesn't count as brainwashing, unless you actually believe in hell. In which case it does. But I wasn't raised in as a christian under the threat of going to hell, hell wasn't even mentioned.

If you actually think for a second and read what I said, threatening someone would count as punishing their ability to think for themselves in this case. So you didn't actually come up with a counter-argument you actually supported mine.

You can't apply logic to the belief in a creator, only the possibility that a creator exists, until there is actual evidence to prove its existence. I never argued that belief in a creator was logical, only that the possibility of a creator's existence is. I believe that there is at least one creator and although logic makes that belief possible, one can't logically prove the existence of a creator without evidence.

Physical evidence, as I stated in my previous post, may be insignificant considering that a deity may live outside of our realm of existence or universe, where we may never acquire such evidence.

People trying to use logic to proove a higher power are looking down the worng path and will never find anything.

Fine, indoctrination if that suits you better.

I suppose I'm Agnostic. It's not something I think about often.

Interesting how that works.

You tell me if it's possible, because I couldn't tell you. You think so, but upon what logical argument do you base this thought? It's nothing more than a hypothesis.

Perhaps what you 'think' is nothing more than just a feeling?



Please explain to me how logic makes that belief possible, because I've never heard a solid argument. What you say here is very contradictory.



I really can't follow that kind of reasoning... I personally don't see any difference. 'Painting' / 'filling in' / 'programming' a blank slate is very much the same to me as 'repainting' / 'rewriting' / 'reprogramming' the entire thing. Stop pretending as if there's a difference. It's filling the whole damn thing in, period.

The same could be said about modern science if a creator does indeed exist. Modern science would most likely only apply to matters within our universe. If something exists outside of our universe, it may very well be governed by other laws or none at all. I guess everyone should just give up trying.





A self-contained universe is also a hypothesis but I don't see anyone arguing that this isn't possible.



What I think has little to do with what we're discussing and is completely irrelevant. We're discussing whether or not the possibility of a creator is logical. The answer is yes.



Sure. The possibility of a creator is logical, thus making my belief possible. There's no contradiction there.

I believe in God.. one of my main reasons is I know that, this planet was no accident or freak of nature.. there is no way we would exist without a higher being.

in an infinite universe, anything is possible.

No, because I was referring to the last part of this bit:





The possibility of a creator would be logical if you had any valid argument to support considering such a possibility.

...including a deity?

A difference so subtle that it doesn't even exist.

I was never taught the fire and brimstone bull**** when I was growing up. Never. That's a far more extremist view.

We're not even discussing whether or not possibilities are logical, because if there is an "outer realm", so to speak, there's no way we could understand it to prove it true or false. It can't be logical to assume any one possibility is true unless you are doing so to draw further conclusions.

Why does everyone always forget about experiences with God? No person had ever reasoned his way to belief in a god without first having some sort of spiritual experience that convinces him that something of the sort exist. There is a difference between me believing in vampires and believing in a God because I have never had an experience with a vampire.

Well this is part of the vagueness of religion, you're not going to convince a skeptic of the existence of God because you say you "experienced" him. You may be telling the truth but you may also have just had a weird experience that you've decided to explain to yourself using a supernatural being. I would expect that I'd self-scrutinise if I'd had such an experience and only if I'd eliminated all possible natural explanations would I even consider a supernatural one. Otherwise it's not much better than concluding that a rock rolls down a hill because God pulls it down rather than the natural explanation that it rolled under the influence of gravity.

This is actually part of the reason I have a big problem with all those religions that state that heathens don't get to go to their paradise. Most people won't believe in God unless either (a) they've been brought up in an environment in which they either haven't been able to question it or have chosen to continue with beliefs instilled early on in childhood or (b) they've had one of these spiritual experiences.
So if I die one day and "wow! those Christians had it right all along!?", do I suddenly find myself plummeting to hell because God couldn't be arsed to give me an experience that would give me a belief in him? Jesus' contemporaries got all sorts of miracles to prove it, but 2000 years later I'm meant to be convinced on hear-say?

Indeed, the problem missionaries have is that spiritual experiences work on a personal basis, and you can't force one. But that's beside the point. The point is that most people who believe in a God are not simply assuming that God exists, they are working with the evidence that is their spiritual experience.

Yes because anything that's entirely subjective can be called 'evidence'

You wouldn't assume an experience was due to god unless you already believed in god.

e.g. 2 people could survive a car crash. 1 person might say "It's a miracle!" and believe god had helped them. The other might say "That was lucky."

And this is where you reveal that you've never had a truly spiritual experience. Was it Avenger talking who was talking about his near-death experiences and how they lead him to believe in a higher being?

Also, spritual experiences are a personal thing. They are only evidence for one person.

(I) An effect cannot have a greater reality than its cause.

(II) God, by definition, is infinitely powerful.

(III) God, by definition, and by (II), does not require a cause.

Our effect here is the development and continued running of the universe. But what is the cause?

By (I), the cause cannot have finite power, because the effect is infinite. The finite cause would have to be the effect of another preceding cause; since this is the case, we have an infinite regression unless we come to a cause with infinite power, because only an infinite power can cause an infinite effect.

By (III), God can simply exist in and of himself, and is not required to be the effect of something else. By (II), God is an infinite cause. By (I), God, an infinite cause, is capable of causing the universe's initial and continued motion, an infinite effect. Therefore, an infinite cause caused an infinite effect, and this satisfies (I).

God therefore is a valid and logical cause for the universe.

My point is, that 2 people can have the exact same experience and interpret it different ways.

Whatever happened to me I'd never assume any experience was down to god. You're still assuming god exists because you're assuming the experiences we're caused by god. It's still subjective, it's not evidence and it's still an assumption.

Heh, I fix0red it

...
(I) is an assumption...
..that your entire argument is based on.

(I) is also incredibly vague. You've not defined what you mean by cause and effect. I could light a match and burn down an entire house. The effect has more of an impact that the cause.

"greater reality" is a tautology since something is real or not you cant have "more real"

People will react differently to different occurances, that's for sure. However, say God does exist and does save two people from death in a car crash. One person may conclude that God exists, while the other decides that it was luck. Does that make the God that saved them any less real?

I'm not saying I can prove to you that God exists. I can prove to myself that God exists, anyone can prove to themselves that God exists because the evidence available works on a subjective, personal level. I am also confident that anyone who examines all the evidence given to them with an open mind will find some sort of God (or gods, I guess). Of course, that's kind of off topic.

No, but again you're assuming god does exist. Just because someone does believe god saved them does it mean it wasn't just luck?



Just because you believe something doesn't make it true...

I disagree on the last part. As I said before, for someone to believe god has influenced them they have to already believe in god at some level.

I'm assuming God exists for the purposes of drawing further conclusions. The point was that how people react does not necessarily affect the truth. Just because you don't react a certain way doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. Which means you can't logic God into or out of existance.

I'm not saying that my believing something makes it true. I cannot convince you through debate that a God exists. That's just not how it works. Agnosticism is the only purely logical stance that makes sense (ignoring personal evidence to either side).

Are you saying that if you had an experience that you could put down to natural means (eg you hallucinate some pretty amazing things but you know it was all down to the LSD you took), that that doesn't mean that God wasn't talking to you anyway!? Surely if there's a rational natural explanation there's no need to invoke God?

If I had a spiritual experience I hope that I would question whether it was down to a whole slew of perfectly natural explanations (drug induced, shock, mental illness, fatigue etc) before saying "God did it".

I disagree, it's more logical to not believe in god than to believe in god (of course the most logical approach is agnostic.. but (non)belief in god has a lot more to it than just logic.)

Theists are assuming 3 different things:
1) Something can exist that was never created
2) God exists and was not created
3) The universe was created by god

Atheists are assuming:
1) Something can exist that was never created
2) The universe exists and was not created

There are less assumptions in atheism than in theism, atheism is more logical (Though not as logical as agnosticism).

...are you actually arguing that an object can do more than it is capable of?


Cause - a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect
Effect - something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence

Also, your match argument disregards the fact that oxygen and the obviously flammable materials used to build the house feed the fire. Your stated cause is incomplete.


Reality was probably the vague word choice here, not cause and effect.
(I) A cause must have at least as much potential as its effect. Meaning, a cause cannot do something more than it is capable of (cannot create an effect that is beyond its abilities to create).



Not if they can find no other satisfactory reason to explain what happened.

For an incredibly extreme example, if someone fell off a cliff and, just before being impaled on the sharp stuff below, they stopped falling, and then floated to safety, it's highly improbable that they would conclude it was "luck" or "a fluke in physics." No earthly reason would explain it.

Obviously, there is essentially no chance that this would ever actually happen, but those such details are beside the point.

The whole 'brainwashing' issue is quite an interesting one, actually.

Expose a child to constantly reinforcing religious education, how will that child respond? This isn't as easy a question to answer as some of you think. A child will not necessarily become a slave to that which it is taught. It is possible that the child will, at some point, come to reject that doctrine and reject it more strongly than a child raised in a secular environment.
In many interviews with famous atheists, they tell that they were raised by religious parents but had some period of enlightenment, usually aged 12 to 17, where they began to question that which had been constantly bombarded upon them. They would come to disbelieve it more strongly and more rationally than those raised in a secular environment, who would probably have little interest or enthusiasm about religion and consider themselves 'agnostic' for some wishy-washy reasoning.
It would be interesting to see the ratio of acceptance to rejection in a religious environment.

Also interesting, and possibly related, is the difference in how religious is considered in Britain and the US.
The US has long had separation of church and state, and while there may well be incidents that raise the debate of that it has always been a basic principle around which things are discussed - religion is kept out of state schools, as government should not be preferential to any religion.
Britain has never had that, separation of church and state has never been an issue and 'Religious Education' is taught right from primary school. So Britons are constantly indoctrinated into religion from a very early age (degree to which varying from school to school), while Americans are not.
And yet, despite separation of church and state, fundamentalist religion is still far more prevalent in America than it is in Britain (mercifully) despite Britons being more prone to 'brainwashing'. Perhaps it is the constant drone of religious education that makes a Briton bitter and skeptical at an older age? Perhaps it is something else.
Whatever it is, I'm pretty ****ing glad that Creationist crazies are confined to your shores.

I'll agree that it can be more logical, but bottom line is that it is not necessarily correct either.

And, as already stated, it is not possible (or has yet to somehow be achieved) to obtain such an infallible truth.

[note]
Not that I'm trying to argue something. Just when I read it, I think I made it sound like I was challenging something with this post, which I'm not.
[/note]

Isn't believing in the universe existing always believing that something between nothingness and the infinite could have always existed? Then what's to say that humans could have not always existed?

actually, I misunderstood the point because of the wording.



Ok, this makes more sense but you're still assuming the universe is infinite and that the universe requires a cause.



As you say, that's not likely. If you find someone who will say that happened to them I wouldn't believe them anyway Of course people wouldn't call it luck, but we're talking about natural events not supernatural events. If something can be explained without needing to call it magic then the answer that doesn't involve magic is more likely to be correct.

This is all hogwash. God exists because I believe he does.



That statement depends heavily on your definition of 'true'.