Foreword: I will not take sides in the original post. Though I will interact after feedback, I will merely post the Question and Guidelines. And also, I have mainly posted it to make an arena where Theists and Atheists can use their arguments and weaponry.
Big Question: Is God real or not?
Guidelines:
Saying "The (Insert Book) says hes real/not real!" will not be recognized as a valid argument unless that book provides a factually/logically-grounded argument for its opinion.
Ground your arguments in as much fact and logic as possible.
Stay on topic. We are not here to define what God is, if the Bible is true, or whether or not God is bald. We are just here to argue the existence of some being that most would call God.
No blatantly saying "your wrong" without arguing for your disagreement.
No Pascals Wager. It honestly proves nothing.
God: Fact or Fiction?
Moderator: Moderators
God: Fact or Fiction?
Post #1[font=Georgia]The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing - Socrates
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #21
A definition that has so many meanings is meaningless. Equating 'proof' to a god destroys the concept of what a god is.The Mad Haranguer wrote:"Gods" come in many guises. Since proof is impossible and it is proof you demand, proof is your god.JoshB wrote: When looking at it, my belief sounds more agnostic than anything...but when I say "Im atheist" Im actually saying "I know of no God to be real. So until he is proven real, I live without any God."
One might as well be a permanent resident in Plato's cave.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
The Mad Haranguer
- Under Probation
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm
Post #22
I'm 100% in favor of evidence and clear concise logic, but not everything is objectifiable (subject to evidence) and not everything can be reduced to logic. This leads to an absurd situation.JoshB wrote:It was wrong of me to confine myself to proof, yes. Nigh irrefutable logic will do fine as well. (For example: the cosmological argument. Its still something I am wrestling with.)
Permanent resident of Platos Cave? I like the philosophy dis! Good job
But Im not sure Plato would have opposed wanting of evidence and clear concise logic...but it seems I am deemed a rather ignorant inquirer for this....enlighten me please
On the one hand, there’s Stephen Weinberg’s comment, “the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless�; on the other hand, scientists never cease expressing astonishment for its conformity with sublime reason. On the one hand, life is the result of a an accidental convergence of purposeless and improbable coincidences; on the other hand, genes are “selfish.� On the one hand, matter-energy is the bottom line; on the other hand, the understanding mind cannot be reduced to it — though not from a lack of trying. On the one hand, evidence is everything; on the other hand, multiple universes for which there is no evidence is (for some) a better theory than consciousness having a creative role in the universe. On the one hand, progress is the watchword of civilization; on the other hand, progress is all but indistinguishable from destruction. On the one hand, science, logic, and experience are absolutely dependent upon the external world; on the other hand, there is no way to know whether our experience of the external world is accurate and actually conforms to reality as it is.
Post #23
Well I appreciate your ideas. Evidence and argument connot be the answer to everything, I agree. There are some subjects (though rather limited) that require abstract thought....but evidence and logic are doin a darn good job at what it controls...
Anyways, back to work. Is the Christian God existant? Or even possible?
Anyways, back to work. Is the Christian God existant? Or even possible?
[font=Georgia]The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing - Socrates
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
-
The Mad Haranguer
- Under Probation
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm
Post #24
There are many Christian conceptions of God. For some, this is like asking if existence existence.JoshB wrote:Well I appreciate your ideas. Evidence and argument connot be the answer to everything, I agree. There are some subjects (though rather limited) that require abstract thought....but evidence and logic are doin a darn good job at what it controls...
Anyways, back to work. Is the Christian God existant? Or even possible?
Does it?
Post #25
Wether or not God is real to you really, originates from your childhood.
I don't believe in God. But I can remeber the reason(s) why from when I was like, 8 or something. At the start, I believed in God. My friends did, I just thought it's something you did-the norm. But, eventually, being the smarty-pants kid I was, I wasn't happy with my 'conclusion'. I didn't see how a God or Gods can be justified. How can one religion say they are right? Then, there was no evidence. And, as a kid, no proof, no belief.
Also, I think, I didn't go to church, my parents did't talk about God or anything. I grew up in a situation where I didn't need a God in my life. I was content. But even then I wasn't an atheist. Three things clamped down on me, keeping agnostic-out of fear. Those are- hell, death and God Himself. Eventually I came to the conclusions- hell is just the catch, a scare tactic. Death, something we must all do. Live life the the fullest, becuase really, what else can you do? God Himself. I just decided I don't fear you God, what you may do to me for not believing.
So that's how I became an athiest. As a kid I didn't realise what decision I had made. I like my conclusion nevertheless. It was logical and unbiased.
Telling someone that their God, their Father, is not their's is just the same as saying you are adopted. As a kid, you accept the facts, and you grow up with them. But, as an adult, being told that something you have believed in all your life is wrong would be hard I think.
There some food for you ever questioning minds.
I don't believe in God. But I can remeber the reason(s) why from when I was like, 8 or something. At the start, I believed in God. My friends did, I just thought it's something you did-the norm. But, eventually, being the smarty-pants kid I was, I wasn't happy with my 'conclusion'. I didn't see how a God or Gods can be justified. How can one religion say they are right? Then, there was no evidence. And, as a kid, no proof, no belief.
Also, I think, I didn't go to church, my parents did't talk about God or anything. I grew up in a situation where I didn't need a God in my life. I was content. But even then I wasn't an atheist. Three things clamped down on me, keeping agnostic-out of fear. Those are- hell, death and God Himself. Eventually I came to the conclusions- hell is just the catch, a scare tactic. Death, something we must all do. Live life the the fullest, becuase really, what else can you do? God Himself. I just decided I don't fear you God, what you may do to me for not believing.
So that's how I became an athiest. As a kid I didn't realise what decision I had made. I like my conclusion nevertheless. It was logical and unbiased.
Telling someone that their God, their Father, is not their's is just the same as saying you are adopted. As a kid, you accept the facts, and you grow up with them. But, as an adult, being told that something you have believed in all your life is wrong would be hard I think.
There some food for you ever questioning minds.
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." -Godwin''s Law
What’s the most resilient parasite? An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the rules and rewrite all existence.
What’s the most resilient parasite? An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the rules and rewrite all existence.
-
Flail
Post #26
The Mad Haranguer wrote:
Which is precisely why we should wait for verifiable evidence of 'gods' rather than concoct them, and in the interim while we search and wait for 'gods', call our 'god ideas' just that...ideas, opinions, theories, hypothesis...not 'truths'.On the one hand, there’s Stephen Weinberg’s comment, “the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless�; on the other hand, scientists never cease expressing astonishment for its conformity with sublime reason. On the one hand, life is the result of a an accidental convergence of purposeless and improbable coincidences; on the other hand, genes are “selfish.� On the one hand, matter-energy is the bottom line; on the other hand, the understanding mind cannot be reduced to it — though not from a lack of trying. On the one hand, evidence is everything; on the other hand, multiple universes for which there is no evidence is (for some) a better theory than consciousness having a creative role in the universe. On the one hand, progress is the watchword of civilization; on the other hand, progress is all but indistinguishable from destruction. On the one hand, science, logic, and experience are absolutely dependent upon the external world; on the other hand, there is no way to know whether our experience of the external world is accurate and actually conforms to reality as it is.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #27
Flail +1Flail wrote:The Mad Haranguer wrote:Which is precisely why we should wait for verifiable evidence of 'gods' rather than concoct them, and in the interim while we search and wait for 'gods', call our 'god ideas' just that...ideas, opinions, theories, hypothesis...not 'truths'.On the one hand, there’s Stephen Weinberg’s comment, “the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless�; on the other hand, scientists never cease expressing astonishment for its conformity with sublime reason. On the one hand, life is the result of a an accidental convergence of purposeless and improbable coincidences; on the other hand, genes are “selfish.� On the one hand, matter-energy is the bottom line; on the other hand, the understanding mind cannot be reduced to it — though not from a lack of trying. On the one hand, evidence is everything; on the other hand, multiple universes for which there is no evidence is (for some) a better theory than consciousness having a creative role in the universe. On the one hand, progress is the watchword of civilization; on the other hand, progress is all but indistinguishable from destruction. On the one hand, science, logic, and experience are absolutely dependent upon the external world; on the other hand, there is no way to know whether our experience of the external world is accurate and actually conforms to reality as it is.
I like what I perceive to be the (majority?) Jewish take - "Here's the best we can tell, take it or leave it, it's up to you".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #28
So since we have a true lack of theological evidence or logic for God in this thread, we've now come to the conclusion that Gods are merely concocted? Coping mechanisms for the fear of what we dont know? I agreee. But I seriously want some theological arguments for the existence of the Christian God instead of getting feedback from people I only agree with...
[font=Georgia]The wisest knowledge is knowing you know nothing - Socrates
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
Reputable or not, he has the right to speak. Reputable or not, we can criticize him.[/font]
-
The Mad Haranguer
- Under Probation
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm
