Open debate: does God exist?

[mayuboar]

I will tell you if i see him, until then I'm undecided.
I am leaning towards a yes, but its not a positive yes.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

The interesting thing here is that you've already decided what the object is before asking. You could very well ask, "What is that on your shoulder?" What you most likely will never ask (because the answer is already given) is, "Is there something on your shoulder?" We already know that to be the case.

This seems to boil down to asking what one already knows, but my point was that imagining something doesn't mean that it exists outside of one's imagination.

Right, it's a safe bet for me to say that you'll never believe the sun is a green ice cube. You've said as much and it seems very unlikely that you are deceiving me about something so odd and trivial. But that slim chance still remains.

Sure.

I agree with this in a general sort of way. I think the equality that I stated had to do with those specific options, as opposed to literally all options.

I see.

The decision to falsify one claim or another based on prior observation is a conscious choice you are making. And there is absolutely nothing at all binding you to that decision. You could determine the correct statement by flipping a coin if you liked. But what you like to do is use laws of nature and your observation of them to determine truth. Not a bad idea, but not mandatory by any means. And definitely not possible for every question.

I think that the most intellectually honest path to truth is to examine evidence and view conclusions as the best current explanations based on what's available. It's not a perfect method, and new evidence may very well change the answers; but if I flip a coin and happen to get the correct answer, I have no way of knowing whether or not it's correct or judging how justifiable that concept is without first looking at evidence.

Technically not true. Simply stating A is evidence for A. The concept of invisible head-sitting elephants is now a part of reality. You know that you have literally invented this concept specifically for this hypothetical question, so for you the credibility of the statement is null and void right out of the gate. Its only natural to dismiss it as 'no evidence'. But for me, until you mentioned the elephant, there was no concept for me to measure. Therefore your mentioning of it was evidence for the existence of invisible head-sitting elephants. They didn't exist before. Now there is the concept, at least.

We disagree in that I refuse to say that something exists because of a concept rather than as a concept.

I will tell you if i see him, until then I'm undecided.
I am leaning towards a yes, but its not a positive yes.

What makes you lean toward a yes?

 

[mayuboar]

This seems to boil down to asking what one already knows, but my point was that imagining something doesn't mean that it exists outside of one's imagination.



Sure.



I see.



I think that the most intellectually honest path to truth is to examine evidence and view conclusions as the best current explanations based on what's available. It's not a perfect method, and new evidence may very well change the answers; but if I flip a coin and happen to get the correct answer, I have no way of knowing whether or not it's correct or judging how justifiable that concept is without first looking at evidence.



We disagree in that I refuse to say that something exists because of a concept rather than as a concept.



What makes you lean toward a yes?

something must govern karma

 

[tumbleweed41]

something must govern karma

Why?

 

[freethinker44]

something must govern karma

Not if it doesn't exist.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

something must govern karma

Define karma.

 

[Sir Doom]

I thought I had responded to this already...

This seems to boil down to asking what one already knows, but my point was that imagining something doesn't mean that it exists outside of one's imagination.

Granted, but my point is that it doesn't mean the opposite either. We imagine lots of things that literally exist as well as things that don't exist yet. And yes, you are right, we imagine things that never leave our imagination.

I think that the most intellectually honest path to truth is to examine evidence and view conclusions as the best current explanations based on what's available. It's not a perfect method, and new evidence may very well change the answers; but if I flip a coin and happen to get the correct answer, I have no way of knowing whether or not it's correct or judging how justifiable that concept is without first looking at evidence.

I agree completely. In the case of god, however there is no evidence to really pull from other than the imaginations of others, which can't really beat your own imagination unless you want it to. So, you imagine god is nothing more than a myth (or whatever you like to say), and anyone else who would like to say differently has a steep hill to climb if they intend to convince you. That's just the way I see it, I guess.

We disagree in that I refuse to say that something exists because of a concept rather than as a concept.

The reason it literally exists, is because it has literal results. The belief in a thing (regardless of the truth of it) translates into reality in the form of action by the believer. No take backs. Undeniable affect on reality by an imagined thing. Well... by a real person imagining a thing. But ultimately that's the same thing. There's no difference as far as reality is concerned, anyway. You and I have the fickle minds of selfish humans so we read all sorts of nonsense into it. But, a human acts on a 'true' belief in the 'wrong' way as often as a 'false' belief in the 'right' way and everything in between.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

It's belief in Santa that causes children to behave well near Christmas, not a real existence of the character they believe in.