God: Fact or Fiction?

[JoshB]

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.

[McCulloch]

Why was my question ignored? Does existence existence exist?

Perhaps because it is unintelligible. Are you asking if existence exists? Do you also want to know how fast velocity is?

[The Mad Haranguer]

Why was my question ignored? Does existence exist?

“God is spirit�; spirit is defined as an animating or vital non-contingent principle held to give being to contingent beings. Atheists contend that no such principle exists. "Just because" is enough. Atheists adore logic and science, but cannot grasp the difference between contingent and non-contingent being. They say they do, but persist in asking, “Who made God?� Neither can they grasp the meaning of “non-objectifiable.� If they did, they would not press for evidence that meets their standard.

Conclusion: Atheists are like little children who pester adults with meaningless questions.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...
Conclusion: Atheists are like little children who pester adults with meaningless questions.

A "meaningless" question is a subjective notion. Where you fail to grasp why the questions are asked, on a debate site, you display your own lack of understanding just what all debate entails.

Then to call folks childish for having the temerity to challenge claims is as "childish" an act as I've ever known.

Is it a product of your religious training to hold yourself superior (adult) to those who've challenged your claims (children)? Or do you just come by this arrogance naturally?

[The Mad Haranguer]

Is it a product of your religious training to hold yourself superior (adult) to those who've challenged your claims (children)? Or do you just come by this arrogance naturally?

It is what it is.

Only a child persists in asking for evidence even after it is shown no evidence can constitute proof. Only a child says they know the difference between contingent and non-contingent being and then asks who made God.

What else can one reasonably conclude? Why protest if you cannot give a viable alternative?

[The Mad Haranguer]

Is it a product of your religious training to hold yourself superior (adult) to those who've challenged your claims (children)? Or do you just come by this arrogance naturally?

It is what it is.

Only a child persists in asking for evidence even after it is shown no evidence can constitute proof. Only a child says they know the difference between contingent and non-contingent being and then asks who made God. Since when does that constitute a debate?

What else can one reasonably conclude? Why protest if you cannot give a viable alternative?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 34:

Is it a product of your religious training to hold yourself superior (adult) to those who've challenged your claims (children)? Or do you just come by this arrogance naturally?

It is what it is.

Only a child persists in asking for evidence even after it is shown no evidence can constitute proof. Only a child says they know the difference between contingent and non-contingent being and then asks who made God.

Funny how you criticize folks, yet you seem incapable of answering, or are deliberately dodging the question presented to you.

What else can one reasonably conclude?

I can only conclude you are utterly incapable of understanding any perspective but your own.

Why protest if you cannot give a viable alternative?"

Viable alternatives for the question(s) proposed to you...

1- It is a part of your religious training to consider yourself superior to others.
2- You come by this arrogance devoid of religious training, or otherwise naturally.

Only you can properly determine which applies.

(edit to sort out quotes)

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

Only a child persists in asking for evidence even after it is shown no evidence can constitute proof. Only a child says they know the difference between contingent and non-contingent being and then asks who made God.

Do you have any verifiable evidence to support this claim? I have known many adults who demand evidence when someone makes unsupportable claims despite the obvious fact that no evidence exists. In debate it is called making a point. I have never known a child who claimed to know the difference between a contingent and non-contingent being.

IMO, the verifiable evidence we have clearly demonstrates that story writers and authors of fiction make gods.

[Flail]

The Mad Haranguer wrote:

“God is spirit�;

To what 'God' do you refer and how did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why was my question ignored? Does existence exist?

Perhaps no one cares to discuss the topic, or members regard it as a foolish question unworthy of debate, or they consider the source.

“God is spirit�; spirit is defined as an animating or vital non-contingent principle held to give being to contingent beings.

The CLAIM “god is spirit� has not been shown to be true or accurate.

Atheists contend that no such principle exists. "Just because" is enough. Atheists adore logic and science, but cannot grasp the difference between contingent and non-contingent being.

Do you purport to know the position and thinking of all Atheists? That would be a remarkable achievement considering there are several million citizens of the US who identify themselves as Atheists in surveys.

They say they do, but persist in asking, “Who made God?� Neither can they grasp the meaning of “non-objectifiable.�

Do ALL Atheists ask “who made god�?????

If they did, they would not press for evidence that meets their standard.

Whose standards should be accepted? Should anyone forgo their personal standards to adopt those suggested by others? If so, why?

What kinds of evidence would YOU suggest be accepted to indicate the existence or presence of invisible, undetectable proposed beings?

Do you suggest acceptance the same level of evidence for any and all proposed invisible, undetectable beings or “spirits�?

OR, do you suggest accepting without evidence?

Conclusion: Atheists are like little children who pester adults with meaningless questions.

Conclusion: 1) Personal opinion based upon conjecture and personal preference, 2) negative attitude toward Atheists, 3) apparent claim of superiority or superior understanding, 4) inappropriate comment, 5) unrelated to OP, 5) violation of Forum Rules and Guidelines (duly reported as such).

Yes, some ask “meaningless questions� – such as, “Why should that which is proposed or presented about “gods� be accepted as truth?� Those questions must really “pester adults� who have no coherent answer.

I, for one, take no position regarding the existence of “gods� – and acknowledge that one or more of the thousands of “gods� worshiped, feared, proposed or imagined by humans MAY exist. When proponents / promoters / worshipers of one of the “gods� declares to have knowledge about that “god� and asks to be believed, I simply ask for reason to accept what they say as truth.

To date, all that has been offered is a flurry of words, conjectures, opinions, and tales written by ancient storytellers and religious promoters. I am asked to accept these as “evidence�, and am asked to “believe on faith� the incredible tales told.

[Stooti]

The Mad Haranguer

Atheists adore logic and science, but cannot grasp the difference between contingent and non-contingent being. They say they do, but persist in asking, “Who made God?�

Adore logic and science, yes. After that is kinda falls apart. But the question "Who made God?" is not one I ask, because, I don't believe in God so I don't need to ask that question. Although I did think about it and I believe religion originated from Africa, where homo-sapiens began their journey out through the top of the continent across the world (could have some debate about that...).

As an atheist, my conlcusion to being one was not only from 'there's no proof', but from many different 'logical' ways of looking at it.

There are many reigions-how can one justify itself? Simple conclusion: they can't. I mean ALL religion. And how Judaism and Christianity are so much alike but they disagree on so much? Doesn't really work.
The Bible, is written in a way to the ages. Man is the center of the creation because humans are selfish, and believe we are all important. People thought the Earth was the center of the universe, so, naturally, the Earth is the center piece of God's creation(s).
Noah's Ark is so complicated I won't even go into that.
And some religious organisation say that either ALL of the Bible is true, or NONE of it is. I know a man who works in the Vatican, teaching theology. He says the Bible cannot be taken literally. So according to this group this man doesn't believe in God because he doesn't believe in the Bible? There are too many... views on religion. Religion as a whole is not stable. If the base is not stable, then the whole thing collapses.