John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

[Alienistic]

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

Human nature, control freaks, and psychological indoctrination. Futile efforts of near meaningless arguing designed to keep humans ignorant to the condition and conditioning that they are actually in.

 

[Segev Moran]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

Arguments are what drives us to find answers.
There are countless of amazing scientific discoveries found only due to the reason of someone arguing things work differently.
As for the specific issue you talk about, the question of life after death currently have no distinct answer.
There are some studies suggesting that even after death there is still some level of continuousness, but it is not yet accepted as a "main stream" science.
If people stop arguing about something it can be for one of the reasons:

An undoubtable answer was given.
One of decides gave up or is convinced the other is right.
The issue has no implications what so ever to our existence.

I would say none of the above applies when it comes to the question of after life.

Do note though, that the recent scientific discoveries suggest that there is a lot more to life than we now.
Life is information. Nature teaches us that when something ends it becomes something else. One can assume it is no different when it comes to end of life.

 

[Vee]

J
Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

I guess thy both believe to be right.

A good conversation is never pointless, at least not to me. Even though we might not always agree, we can always learn from someone else's point of view. Let's be honest, if we only talk to people who completely agree with everything we say, life won't be very exciting.

 

[The Hammer]

Isn't that fallacious way of presenting the problem (it begs the question btw)? I mean, if there is no life after death, it would indeed be impossible to speak to the dead. Thus, if Joe is correct, neither of them should be able to communicate with the dead. The fact that neither can is evidence towards Joe's hypothesis.



While certainty isn't something that is always achievable and is in fact incredibly rare, that doesn't mean that humans can't think in shades of grey or in a probabilistic manner. If certainty isn't possible, why not argue about reasonability? While neither John or Joe can be certain of anything and neither can confirm their respective belief and convert it into a fact, it might very well be possible distinguish which belief is most probable and reasonable given the available body of facts.

I can speak to the dead. You can't?

They're great listeners.

 

[BrightShadow]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

I don't think there is much difference between Joe and John since both are not sure what they believe. Both of them think one way or the other. It seems either of them can shift from their position by persuasion. So, good that they are discussing or arguing. There is opportunity to learn and figure out things even with lack of evidence.

I guess that should address the OP but let's go a step further and really try to find out who could be right...

I believe - if you believe in something - it has to come from the gut. "To think something" and "to believe in something" is not the same thing!

Even in the case of an Atheist - for non belief in the existence of god/God - one has to be confident in his stance otherwise he could easily be an agnostic.
Furthermore - it is not clear what Joe really believes in. Does he believe in evolution theory or does he believe aliens created him? Maybe he thinks his forefathers 'poofed' into existence.
If Joe is an Atheist and if he believes in the theory of evolution then we can go on with this hypothesis.

Let's just say Joe is an Atheist and John is a theist. So, lack of believe in a creator means Joe believes he was created by chance and via evolution process and John may also believe in the theory of evolution but at least he believes a God is there behind the whole thing. John may also believe he came from Adam but we don't know for sure.

In either case,
Joe believes in "chance"
John believes in a "God"

For Joe to believe in "Chance" - he would need to believe that complex life has formed on earth by evaluation process where billions of things have to be just in the right order to make it happen. But before billions of things has to be in right order for evolution to even take place successfully - the earth has to be created also by chance. Before that our solar system and before that our universe and so on. Everything has to be created randomly and everything has to be in right order and within right settings to allow life on earth.

Lets just go to the beginning of creation! First of all - the concept of "Time" has to be created by itself. I don't think we know enough about "Time" and its relation with the universe but we do know that at a certain point in "time" our universe must have been created in a process that collaborates with the "Big bang theory". Whatever way the universe came into existence - it requires a beginning. After that point in time - billions or trillions of galaxy were to be created randomly by chance. A few steps forward - our galaxy (the Milky Way), our solar system, sun and finally when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to form our planet earth - we got our home world! The earth had to form at a precise distance from sun and it needed to contain all life sustaining elements and it needed to rotate at precise pace to create the right gravitation pull and also rotate around the sun at a precise distance where the temperature is just about right to have a habitable environment. After all that - the Darwin's theory kicks in and step by step (in a very complex settings) all the species evolved through the evolution process - finally after a process that started billions of years ago - Joe came into existence! For that to happen - so many things had to be just in right order since the beginning of the universe. The probabilities of all that happening in the correct order and correct environment is something that can be compared to throwing a small pebble in the ocean and hoping to hit a small fish that is hiding in there. Actually the ocean would need to be billions of times bigger than what we have on earth and the pebble and fish need to be billions of times smaller in size. Now imagine hitting that minuscule fish with the minuscule pebble in the a super gigantic ocean.
So, Joe would rather believe in such "chances" rather than believing in a Creator because Joe claims he doesn't see any proof of a Creator!

You decide who is right!

On a side note - I believe John can say that the proof of the creator is already there in all the creations.
Forget about talking to dead people, forget about the mountains, the trees, the bees, the birds - just take a look at anatomy of a human body. All the complex organs started from one cell. How the artery and vein travel through the body and through bones and yet hardly ever get compressed, how food travel through about 22 ft of intestines, how everything in the blood maintains such accurate levels for body to remain healthy, how much blood the heart pumps a day - all that should signal some higher authority is behind the blueprint of a human body and it is not just random evolution.
All the physics the chemistry the biochemistry the genetics or biological information science (DNA) involved in the creation of human body should suggest a purposeful intelligent designer is behind it. But Joe wants to believe all that happened due to necessity, evolution and chance.

But even if Joe is right then where did the consciousness come from?

So, I think it is good that Joe is discussing with John. Let it be a constructive argument.
Meaningless argument - on the other hand is not warranted and neither Joe or John should participate in that!

 

[Clara Tea]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

They were not alive before they were conceived. Would death be like that? Does the soul get reincarnated? If so, are there souls that remember past lives?

If memories are purged from souls in the afterlife, I suppose it would be useless to find old kids and spouses in heaven. Why would one want to speak to other souls who have also had their memories purged?

What if John and Joe doubt the existence of each other? What if they begin to doubt the existence of themselves? Perhaps they are a butterfly dreaming that they are human rather than a human dreaming that they are butterflies? Perhaps we are all in a virtual world, composed of computer pixels?

Maybe what we think are Gods are really aliens from space?

 

[Clara Tea]

I can speak to the dead. You can't?

They're great listeners.

Everyone gets up and leaves when I talk. Though the dead take a while to do so. "There are so many things you can't do when you are dead (so it's great to be alive)"--Mel Brooks.

Maxwell smart was given a suicide tablet, but wondered how he could get the enemy to take it. He tried enticing them by saying that it's raspberry this month, and non-habit-forming.

If heaven is so great, I wonder why everyone is so avid about staying alive?

Maybe we should assign a probability to getting into heaven. When one reaches heaven, that probability will become a certainty. But what if the next level of existence is still not heaven? Perhaps we should assign a probability to each level of the afterlife?

 

[The Hammer]

Everyone gets up and leaves when I talk. Though the dead take a while to do so. "There are so many things you can't do when you are dead (so it's great to be alive)"--Mel Brooks.

Maxwell smart was given a suicide tablet, but wondered how he could get the enemy to take it. He tried enticing them by saying that it's raspberry this month, and non-habit-forming.

If heaven is so great, I wonder why everyone is so avid about staying alive?

Maybe we should assign a probability to getting into heaven. When one reaches heaven, that probability will become a certainty. But what if the next level of existence is still not heaven? Perhaps we should assign a probability to each level of the afterlife?

I see/sense roughly 4 levels to the afterlife. Midgard (our world), the Underworld, and 2 upper worlds. The upper most being the realm beyond even the Gods.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Great questions with so many varying responses, but let me add a Christian perspective.

"Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?"

The evidence for God does not rest upon speaking with the dead. Despite skeptics' denials, there is in fact a large amount of scientific and prophetic evidence to consider in the matter. Thus, the argument is not pointless. As a Christian, I've leaned though that arguing apologetics with someone holding a strong, opposing world view is non-productive. For them, it's not a matter of the evidence; it's a matter of the heart.

"A god can neither be proven nor disproven..."

Actually, like most things in this world, a preponderance of the evidence can be weighed to assess the matter. If one studies creationism vs evolution fairly, we find that our strongest laws of science support one model over the other. To this end, we have evidence far beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a supernatural Creator of the universe.

Why would people argue about something that can't be known or shown....?

I'd suggest that the skeptic has a heart incentivised to reject God in order to live for himself rather than submit to any supreme being. Thus, when confronted with that belief system, he's compelled to defend it. On the other hand, a Christian defending the faith and reaching out to others has a genuine desire to spread the Gospel message and see others saved. It's like someone discovering an unlimited fountain of youth as an old man. Of course they'd want to share it with everyone they know and meet.

"What about Jim who doesn't think that a god does exist but doesn't take the position that a god doesn't exist? That's me. I don't believe that a god does exist, because I'm still waiting to be convinced by some form of verifiable evidence."

Whether it's an open rejection of God as an Atheist or an apathetic dismissal of God as an Agnostic, the effect is the same - a desire to serve oneself over a desire to submit to a supreme being. One either designates himself god of his own life or submits to another god. In either case, many become believers, but how? As the Bible says: seek and ye shall find.

You won't find evidence for God or the Bible in 90% of the secular websites, the Atheistic Nat Geo or History Channel shows, the academic world, or public arena. But if you have a heart that's receptive to God, there's an abundance of books, articles, and videos available from Christian apologists today - great stuff detailing an overwhelming amount of scientific, historical, archaeological, prophetic, and textual criticism evidence supporting Christianity as the world's one true faith. No one's gonna convince you, but when your heart opens to the possibility and you seek the truth from the right sources, God's light will shine through.

 

[epronovost]

I can speak to the dead. You can't?

They're great listeners.

How do you know they are listening?

There is a difference between speaking at or about something and speaking to something.

 

[The Hammer]

How do you know they are listening?

There is a difference between speaking at or about something and speaking to something.

A feeling of response, an understanding of being "heard". Not really perfectly explainable, and I'm not trying to convince anyone I truly can/do.

But it works for me

 

[epronovost]

Actually, like most things in this world, a preponderance of the evidence can be weighed to assess the matter. If one studies creationism vs evolution fairly, we find that our strongest laws of science support one model over the other. To this end, we have evidence far beyond any reasonable doubt that there is a supernatural Creator of the universe.

To put it bluntly, you are an delusional idiot if you assert that there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a supernatural creator of the universe if only, but not exclusively, because "supernatural" implies that it isn't supported by evidence, logic, science or reason which are all tools design to explore, explain and experiment in the natural world. Nothing supernatural can have any sort of scientific or logical evidence by definition. This sort of basic self contradiction is just one of the reason why beliefs, like the one quoted above, are only held by deeply delusional people.

 

[epronovost]

A feeling of response, an understanding of being "heard". Not really perfectly explainable, and I'm not trying to convince anyone I truly can/do.

But it works for me

Well if you can't convince people (or at least make a good argument showing) you aren't self deluded or even completely insane, you aren't exactly in a "reasonable place" and people should probably be prudent when trusting you with important decision that basic require reasoning skills since you apply them sparingly or ineffectively in your daily life about important subject like "have my action their intended effect".

Of course "it works for you". If you don't try to be reasonable, anything and everything "can work for you". You could assert you actually are the real POTUS and the puppet POTUS simply receives your instruction through psychic communication and the times he does things you don't want him to is simply because he misunderstood your instructions with that sort of method.

 

[The Hammer]

Well if you can't convince people (or at least make a good argument showing) you aren't self deluded or even completely insane, you aren't exactly in a "reasonable place" and people should probably be prudent when trusting you with important decision that basic require reasoning skills since you apply them sparingly or ineffectively in your daily life about important subject like "have my action their intended effect".

Of course "it works for you". If you don't try to be reasonable anything and everything "can work for you". You could assert you actually are the real POTUS and the puppet POTUS simply receives your instruction through psychic communication and the times he does things you don't want him to is simply because he misunderstood your instructions with that sort of method.

Mmk....

Like I said, not my job to convince someone else. Like proselytation, it's pointless.

 

[osgart]

If you go by physical senses alone then there's nothing of a life after death to me.

If you go by reason from evidence then everybody has different reasons for things. I don't think there's a uniform, universal sense of reason. I think the differences are starkly different.

Civil argument can be a good thing though but I don't see the need to get bitter about it. I've learned to accept that obvious isn't the same with everybody.

As much as people think it's somehow easier to escape reality hardship being a believer, I don't think that's true at all. Some believer perceptions of reality are actually tougher to live then non believer realities. Wishful thinking isn't always it, often it's not that at all. Believers are truly convinced.

I think the passions come into play when it comes down to policy, power, rights, and freedoms. Otherwise it's trying to convert people. I think non believers try to convert just as much as anybody.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A god can neither be proven nor disproven which shows the argument is nothing more than a personal choice of arguing.
Why would people argue about something that can't be known or shown....unless its just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

I could invent any number of fictitious things that can neither be proven nor disproven.

If God has no more support than made-up nonsense than I just pulled out of my butt, then this says something about whether John or Joe's position is more reasonable.

 

[firedragon]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

What are Johns justifications for believing in God.
Does Joe say God doesnt exist? Then what are his justifications?

Only after weighing both can you even begin anything.

 

[alypius]

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

What if someone came back from the dead?

 

[Truthseeker]

Arguments are what drives us to find answers.
There are countless of amazing scientific discoveries found only due to the reason of someone arguing things work differently.

I slightly disagree. Not from them arguing about it, but from them looking at it independently from others. I don't like arguing and debate. It gets each side stubbornly holding to how they already see it.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think non believers try to convert just as much as anybody.

Not sure what the rest of what you said was about, but I agree with this.