Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

rehmwa

...So, even though they invited Joe to sit around and roll the pair of dice one hundred times in a stifling house with no A/C on a hot day, Joe declines and spends the day at the beach drinking beer and playing cards and watching bikini models on a photo shoot.

Clearly Joe is smart.

Guys named "Joe" usually are.
At least that's what I believe.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Faith is "belief in the pure absence of proof"
So I disagree, there is nothing to prove. Just a choice to believe, or (various forms of 'otherwise' that I wouldn't dare to try and define).

Faith is a " Thought Experiment". As with science when the means of proving a fact is lacking, thought experiments helps to bridge the gap. There are many scientific phenomenon that were first conceived by thought experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

As one who has found faith in God through such a process, the psycho-spiritual rewards I have gained are my most valued possessions.

...

[jcd11235 0]

maadmax

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

No. While some atheists actively believe there is no god, others find the suggestion of a supreme being unreasonable and not worthy of consideration, no thought experiment required.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jclalor 12]

maadmax

Quote

Faith is "belief in the pure absence of proof"
So I disagree, there is nothing to prove. Just a choice to believe, or (various forms of 'otherwise' that I wouldn't dare to try and define).

Faith is a " Thought Experiment". As with science when the means of proving a fact is lacking, thought experiments helps to bridge the gap. There are many scientific phenomenon that were first conceived by thought experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

As one who has found faith in God through such a process, the psycho-spiritual rewards I have gained are my most valued possessions.

...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Stephen Roberts

[turtlespeed 226]

rehmwa

***>I eagerly await whatever irritable bashing comes next

My level of belief in an omnipotent being is superior to your level of belief in an omnipotent being.

(I should make a T-shirt . . .)

my omniscient being already knew you'd say that

Pswah . . . My God created your God!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

normiss

Whew. Much better.
I have let everything go, in the trust of your book.
Thank you.
Are you The divine one?

Wait if he's the Devine one - Does that make you the messiah?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mr2mk1g 10]

beowulf

The biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's logically inconsistent in regards to the need to have evidence to support the non existence of God.

It's not logically possible to have any evidence of the non existence of anything. So because of this I think your logic falls apart.

The crux of the matter is what is your level evidence or logic for believing something? What does it take to convince you to believe a claim? The answer to this is different depending on the claim being made. The more outlandish the greater the level of evidence and the stronger the logic needed to convince.

So to me the question of whether or not you are an atheist comes down to one simple question. Are you convinced of the existence of God or gods? It's a yes or no question. Saying 'I don't know if I am convinced of the existence of God' is simply avoiding the question. If you say there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, it's also avoiding the question. Why? Because it's not logically possible to have evidence of the non existence of anything. This is not to say that I would not change my mind if evidence of the existence of gods were to come to light. I would.

But considering that many define God as being omnipotent and omniscient which is contradictory and is like saying you have a round square. It simply can not exist as a God defined in such a way also can not logically exist.

I would consider you to be an atheist based on what you have written.

What logic or argument? I didn't proffer any/one.

I just said what I believe to be the case. I put that belief no higher than anyone else's. That's the point. It's just a belief.

I'm not suggesting a need for evidence either way because there is and can be none unless some bloke turns up one day and goes "hey everybody [poooof] who want's some bread and fish? Here, let me fix those mangled legs for you [poooof], PS I'm god, [poooof] have some wine, YOLO! Who want's to be touched by MY noodly appendage? " I'm assuming he'd no longer wear sandals though, or hell, he could be a many-armed elephant or something, depending on which of the religions, if any, is right. Hell, the Kastom people of Vanuatu worship Prince Philip as a deity - probably pisses the racist old bastard right off.

Your question as to whether or not someone is an atheist is again, attempting to take words far beyond their original meanings. Atheists, in the traditional meaning of the word, profess that there is no god. Whilst I accept that that definition has slipped in the popular vernacular, frankly I think it's a shame that people have taken some perfectly useful words and buggered them up for everyone so that no one knows what the hell anyone is saying anymore.

I don't profess non-existence, it's just what I believe. I have to tacitly accept however that I can't know for sure. Whilst I don't believe there is one, I'm not going to go toe-to-toe with someone in an attempt to prove the point. It's impossible. For that reason, plus I really don't give that much of a shit, I'm not going to profess the non-existence of a god. It's just a belief I hold.

And though a rather odd non-sequitur, I agree with your point re omniscience and omnipotence. Logically, if a god is both omniscient and omnipotent then he is also an arsehole given what we see in the world. If he's not an arsehole then he can't possibly be both omniscient and omnipotent. I'm not sure that proves much though as it's quite easily the result of balls-up in church dogma. Look at the mess the early church got itself into with their trinity nonsense.

On the arsehole point - I'm not a bad person. If I'm wrong about everything and some day suddenly wake up in front of a set of pearly gates in a tangled mass of lines after hooking in then a non-arsehole god will see me right. If not and god's got the hump with me because I didn't wear my hair in little ringlets by my face and I cut my beard and didn't wear the right little doylie hat and went skydiving on a Saturday then frankly, screw that. I'd rather not be associated with such a capricious little shit. Mazel tov to him but I'm ooot.

You can consider me an atheist if you like, I don't really care. If push came to shove, I'd probably stick myself in that category too as, given the historically recent bastardisation of the traditional definitions of the words atheist and agnostic, as discussed above, I don't really have a definition to call my own anymore. Ideally, I'd probably combine the two terms.

[kallend 2,106]

maadmax

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Ra, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Baal, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Zeus, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Odin, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving the FSM, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

...

It's really a fucking stupid statement you made there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[beowulf 1]

It's his effort to justify his irrational beliefs. The more irrational the beliefs the worse the justifications.

Since there is no way of disproving leprechauns, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Works just as well!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't really have a definition to call my own anymore. Ideally, I'd probably combine the two terms.

rehmwa

ath-nogstic

Done and done


though I'm fond of the actual term "agnostic apathetic" (i.e., don't know, don't care). Apparently it's an organized movement - (yes the irony is rich)

I might differentiate atheists and agnostics by the amount of 'caring' they tend to put into how other people perceive the definitions of each.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

rehmwa

I might differentiate atheists and agnostics by the amount of 'caring' they tend to put into how other people perceive the definitions of each.....

Returning to my metaphor above, an agnostic would be someone who designs and performs the experiment, acknowledges that the results don't support rejecting the null hypothesis (that the dice are fair), but, seeing a p-value of "only" 0.489, thinks more investigation is necessary before fully accepting the null hypothesis.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Stumpy 284]

jclalor

***

Quote

Faith is "belief in the pure absence of proof"
So I disagree, there is nothing to prove. Just a choice to believe, or (various forms of 'otherwise' that I wouldn't dare to try and define).

Faith is a " Thought Experiment". As with science when the means of proving a fact is lacking, thought experiments helps to bridge the gap. There are many scientific phenomenon that were first conceived by thought experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

As one who has found faith in God through such a process, the psycho-spiritual rewards I have gained are my most valued possessions.

...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Stephen Roberts

That's good . Don't think I had seen that one before - thanks.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[maadmax 0]

kallend

***

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Ra, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Baal, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Zeus, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Odin, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving the FSM, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

...

It's really a fucking stupid statement you made there.

Predictable and boring. I would expect to see some new material from you by now. You statement is an argument for the existence of God. We know God exists and have instinctively searched for Him since the inception of our species. False gods die out, the Truth will exist forever.

...

[Zep 0]

We know God exists,

Some times intelligent people can say some really stupid things.

Gone fishing

[kallend 2,106]

maadmax

******

Since there is no way of disproving God, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Ra, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Baal, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Zeus, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving Odin, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

Since there is no way of disproving the FSM, atheism and agnosticism are also thought experiments.

...

It's really a fucking stupid statement you made there.

Predictable and boring. I would expect to see some new material from you by now. You statement is an argument for the existence of God. We know God exists and have instinctively searched for Him since the inception of our species. False gods die out, the Truth will exist forever.

...

Predictable and devoid of any evidence whatsoever.
How do you know that your god isn't a false one?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Coreeece 2]

wmw999

While the scientific method is a wonderful construct, it's a human construct

It's doubtful that science could ever recognize God as God. For example, let's say that dark matter was the Spirit of God - an invisible omnipresent force - science couldn't recognize it as such.

Even if those that choose to limit themselves to science saw God directly, it wouldn't fit into their limited construct and would first question their sanity before ever acknowledging God.

I think a good example of this is the emerging idea among the scientific community that a general belief in God is an inherent human characteristic - but rather than use that as evidence to acknowledge the possible existence of God, they merely pass it off as an evolutionary benefit.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

Al has faith. He assumes the dice are loaded without evidence. Bob is an atheist. He doesn't need evidence that the dice are not loaded, because he's seen nothing to even suggest the possibility that they are loaded. At this point, it's not reasonable to even consider the question.

I think there's a lot of people out there with loaded dice that would like to take advantage of Bob - they could steal all his money before he even suspected anything was wrong.

Perhaps Al is just street smart and has an instinct to know that something is up, and lives to see another day, while Bob looses his ass simply because he chose to limit his human experience to mere science and probability - but now it's too late.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

mr2mk1g

of the words atheist and agnostic, as discussed above, I don't really have a definition to call my own anymore. Ideally, I'd probably combine the two terms.

Anthagonist?

(the H is silent)

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[turtlespeed 226]

Zep

We know God exists,

Some times intelligent people can say some really stupid things.

However - he is technically correct.

Since God is energy being produce by the consumption of materials, in the way of thought, which is generated by electrons along neuro pathways, the existence is a reality.

It's just different than one would think.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

***Al has faith. He assumes the dice are loaded without evidence. Bob is an atheist. He doesn't need evidence that the dice are not loaded, because he's seen nothing to even suggest the possibility that they are loaded. At this point, it's not reasonable to even consider the question.

I think there's a lot of people out there with loaded dice that would like to take advantage of Bob - they could steal all his money before he even suspected anything was wrong.

You have Al and Bob confused with each other.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Predictable and devoid of any evidence whatsoever.
How do you know that your god isn't a false one?

I don't. I leave myself open to all possibilities and go with the flow. The flow has taken me to a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles. My personal thought experiment and conclusions are totally inconsequential in the big scheme of things. But I feel I should at least try to make some sense out of the spiritual chaos I(we) find ourselves in.

...

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

******Al has faith. He assumes the dice are loaded without evidence. Bob is an atheist. He doesn't need evidence that the dice are not loaded, because he's seen nothing to even suggest the possibility that they are loaded. At this point, it's not reasonable to even consider the question.

I think there's a lot of people out there with loaded dice that would like to take advantage of Bob - they could steal all his money before he even suspected anything was wrong.

You have Al and Bob confused with each other.

Nonsense, clearly Bob is the one that needs scientific proof that he has been deceived before believing it - unfortunately for him tho, by that time it's too late. . .

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

Nonsense, clearly Bob is the one that needs scientific proof that he has been deceived before believing it - unfortunately for him tho, by that time it's too late. . .

Clearly you failed to understand the metaphor.

Do you capture every squirrel you come across to have them tested to verify they aren't mutants that will grow to be eleven stories tall and snack on humans, or do you just assume that since there's been no indication of anything like that happening, it's not worth the effort or expense to have them tested?

Do you consult astronomers each day to find out if there will be a sunrise tomorrow, or do you assume that, without evidence to the contrary, Earth will continue rotating as it has every other day of your lifetime.

Do you consult with civil engineers every time before you leave your house to find out what color comes after green in the color sequence of traffic lights, or do you just assume it will be yellow, since there has been no indication of any change in their function?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

***Nonsense, clearly Bob is the one that needs scientific proof that he has been deceived before believing it - unfortunately for him tho, by that time it's too late. . .

Clearly you failed to understand the metaphor.

No, clearly I just simply turned it against you.

jcd11235

Do you capture every squirrel you come across to have them tested to verify they aren't mutants that will grow to be eleven stories tall and snack on humans

No, I don't possess an inherent characteristic to believe that I should.

jcd11235

Do you consult astronomers each day to find out if there will be a sunrise tomorrow, or do you assume that, without evidence to the contrary, Earth will continue rotating as it has every other day of your lifetime.

I believe it as strongly as I inherently believe that a creation has a creator.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

No, clearly I just simply turned it against you.

Well, you may have tried, but you failed miserably.

Coreeece

No, I don't possess an inherent characteristic to believe that I should.

So your logic is faulty and inconsistent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!