Open debate: does God exist?

[RJ50]

I gave the deity a chance to reveal itself to me when I was a young person. It blew it!

 

[Willamena]

I gave the deity a chance to reveal itself to me when I was a young person. It blew it!

Timing.

 

[Quintessence]

Timing.

Or interpretation.

I didn't think "god" revealed itself to me either as a kid, but I was also operating under the paradigm of classical monotheism that didn't allow me to interpret my experiences that way. Once I got free of that narrow paradigm, in retrospect, the gods were "revealing" themselves very early in a different theological context. I was told "god is the creator, not the creation," so I couldn't interpret things that way as a child. It took an adult mind breaking free from narrow theological ideas to realize that.

Contrary to what is sometimes the popular opinion, religion takes thinking and effort. Much of things is not going to be handed to you on a convenient take-out catty.

 

[Sir Doom]

Something's existence can be demonstrated by physical properties and/or how it affects others. In case you might suggest that god has affected countless people throughout history, I'll only go as far to say that belief in god affected those people, just like how belief in Santa causes many children to behave well as Christmas gets closer.

No, something's existence is a given, as I said. Demonstration is only important to definition which I've already stated is arbitrary and/or speculative which is exactly why demonstration becomes important in the first place. You intend to convince someone of the properties of an existent thing, not its existence. Existence should be a foregone conclusion or demonstration is hopelessly impossible.

Does Dr. Doom's creator specifically say that he's fictional? If he did, what if he didn't? Furthermore, if he did, what if either Dr. Doom does exist somewhere (and perhaps inspired the character), or what if Dr. Doom really does exist and the author just wants people to think he's fictional?

I almost typed something similar to this in order to show that Dr. Doom may very well be an actual human being.

While few people would actually claim that Dr. Doom is real, the lack of evidence for him, signs of authorship, and similar other fictional stories make disbelief in him justifiable. Belief in him would not be justifiable.

You were good until the last sentence. Belief requires no justification. You believe what you believe regardless of the consequences. If someone believes there is a real person named Dr. Doom, so be it. I might try to convince them otherwise mostly through questioning their commitment to the idea, but when push comes to shove I can't make a person believe anything they don't want to believe nor could I stop them from believing something they want to believe. That choice is always made internally.

Yet, the same is true of god. There's a lack of evidence for his existence, there are literary reasons to think the authors of the bible had specific intentions (not to mention the NT stories being spread orally for decades before finally being written down), and there are countless other examples of gods being created throughout history. The only main difference is that only the spawns of the Abrahamic god have survived time.

First, I'm not a Christian. I don't care what the Bible says or where it comes from in relation to my religion. Second, I've created my religion from the ground up. Please explain why this makes it less 'justifiable' as a belief. And third, quite a bit more than the spawns of the Abrahamic god are worshiped across this planet.

Since the number of people who believe in something doesn't affect whether or not it's true (people used to believe the Earth was flat and the center of the universe), it doesn't matter how many people believe in different versions of the same god, which are arguably different gods. The burden of proof rests with the people making the claim that this god is real.

Want to know something funny? I am certain that your belief in the spherical world has more to do with the number of people who agree with that belief than it does with empirical evidence. Have you ever conducted an experiment in this regard? I'd love to hear about it.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

I am skeptical of some people, but I am not skeptical of God. I know He is real, and it saddens me that others are unwilling to take the journey that will lead them to the same knowledge that I have.

I know that he is not real, and it saddens me that others are unwilling to take the journey that will lead them to the same knowledge that I have.

No, something's existence is a given, as I said. Demonstration is only important to definition which I've already stated is arbitrary and/or speculative which is exactly why demonstration becomes important in the first place. You intend to convince someone of the properties of an existent thing, not its existence. Existence should be a foregone conclusion or demonstration is hopelessly impossible.

I forget where we were going with this. Was your claim that things exist by default?

You were good until the last sentence. Belief requires no justification. You believe what you believe regardless of the consequences. If someone believes there is a real person named Dr. Doom, so be it. I might try to convince them otherwise mostly through questioning their commitment to the idea, but when push comes to shove I can't make a person believe anything they don't want to believe nor could I stop them from believing something they want to believe. That choice is always made internally.

Every person has the right to believe what they want, although it's not entirely one's choice. I can't choose to believe that the sun is a green cube made of ice. But if I did believe that, would my beliefs be justified?

First, I'm not a Christian. I don't care what the Bible says or where it comes from in relation to my religion. Second, I've created my religion from the ground up. Please explain why this makes it less 'justifiable' as a belief. And third, quite a bit more than the spawns of the Abrahamic god are worshiped across this planet.

What are your religious views? I didn't know what they were, so I couldn't have claimed that not being Christian views made them less justifiable, unless you're instead referring to the importance of having evidence.

Want to know something funny? I am certain that your belief in the spherical world has more to do with the number of people who agree with that belief than it does with empirical evidence. Have you ever conducted an experiment in this regard? I'd love to hear about it.

When looking around in all directions, I can't see buildings in another continent. I've seen pictures and videos of the Earth from space. The moon and Venus, which are spheres, go through phases as they travel around the Earth and the Sun; the Earth, like them, is always half lit and half dark, which the pictures and videos confirm. My basic knowledge of physics tells that the Earth's mass is more than enough for hydrostatic equilibrium, resulting in a spherical shape albeit not a perfect sphere.

Growing up, I was told that the Earth was round, but the above is evidence that supports it. Yet, I was also taught that racial minorities were inferior, homosexuality is immoral, the United States is the best country in the world, and Santa and god are real. Luckily, evidence and critical thinking eventually led me to question these.

 

[Sir Doom]

I forget where we were going with this. Was your claim that things exist by default?

My original statement was, "Existence is a given."

Every person has the right to believe what they want, although it's not entirely one's choice. I can't choose to believe that the sun is a green cube made of ice.

What is preventing you from believing that?

But if I did believe that, would my beliefs be justified?

Of course. Why would you need to ask this again?

What are your religious views?

It isn't that important to the discussion other than the fact that I've made them up (as I've already stated). When you were attempting to discredit the Bible in your last post you mentioned that it was 'created' as if this somehow diminished the credibility of it. As I have literally invented my own religion, can you explain why you think this makes it less credible?

I didn't know what they were, so I couldn't have claimed that not being Christian views made them less justifiable, unless you're instead referring to the importance of having evidence.

What I'm referring to is that all of the points in your quoted statement were talking about the Bible god. You can make that guy non-existent to your hearts content, it will not serve as any sort of suitable argument with me, however.

When looking around in all directions, I can't see buildings in another continent. I've seen pictures and videos of the Earth from space. The moon and Venus, which are spheres, go through phases as they travel around the Earth and the Sun; the Earth, like them, is always half lit and half dark, which the pictures and videos confirm. My basic knowledge of physics tells that the Earth's mass is more than enough for hydrostatic equilibrium, resulting in a spherical shape albeit not a perfect sphere.

So, no you haven't conducted any experimentation in this regard which means that all of your 'knowledge' on the subject is like mine. Conjecture and hearsay. And while I remain convinced that world is round and I will always act as though this is the absolute truth, there remains a teeny tiny glimmer of doubt in the form of a finite perceptive grasp of reality.

Growing up, I was told that the Earth was round, but the above is evidence that supports it. Yet, I was also taught that racial minorities were inferior, homosexuality is immoral, the United States is the best country in the world, and Santa and god are real. Luckily, evidence and critical thinking eventually led me to question these.

Simply because we abandon certain beliefs of the past does not lend more credibility to those that remain.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

My original statement was, "Existence is a given."

But for all things? To see if I understand what you're saying, are you saying that Santa exists but is then defined as being mythical? If so, I would say that the concept of Santa exists but that the character of the myth doesn't exist in the real world.

What is preventing you from believing that?

Lack of reason for believing it and data that contracts all three features. Since there's no apparent evidence suggesting that it is a giant green ice cube, I wouldn't have any justifiable reason for believing that it is, especially when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

On a side note, I like how these forums automatically prevent pyramid quoting by removing what would be quoted quotes in replies.

It isn't that important to the discussion other than the fact that I've made them up (as I've already stated). When you were attempting to discredit the Bible in your last post you mentioned that it was 'created' as if this somehow diminished the credibility of it. As I have literally invented my own religion, can you explain why you think this makes it less credible?

What you created could happen to be the ultimate truth. Being created doesn't automatically make it impossible, although if you created it, then it would follow that a god didn't create it.

What I'm referring to is that all of the points in your quoted statement were talking about the Bible god. You can make that guy non-existent to your hearts content, it will not serve as any sort of suitable argument with me, however.

I agree. If I disprove Islam, it doesn't affect Buddhism.

So, no you haven't conducted any experimentation in this regard which means that all of your 'knowledge' on the subject is like mine. Conjecture and hearsay. And while I remain convinced that world is round and I will always act as though this is the absolute truth, there remains a teeny tiny glimmer of doubt in the form of a finite perceptive grasp of reality.

Nothing is an absolute truth except for arguably a few things, such as "I exist." This includes the notion that the Earth is round, which could be false; but since all evidence suggests that it is spherical in shape, acceptance of this as the best current model based on available data is justified by the evidence. It is most probably true, just like the Sun being a green cube is most probably not true.

Simply because we abandon certain beliefs of the past does not lend more credibility to those that remain.

True. That credibility (or justifiability as I've been calling it) is based on the evidence that supports it, not on how modern it is.

 

[marcus freudental]

Hi there,
You asked about a definition of God that did not involve tissue paper, right?
How about intelligent, freely acting first cause, for starters.
I could go with, divine lawgiver, for seconds.

 

[Sir Doom]

But for all things? To see if I understand what you're saying, are you saying that Santa exists but is then defined as being mythical?

Yes, this is what I'm saying.

If so, I would say that the concept of Santa exists but that the character of the myth doesn't exist in the real world.

Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



All definition after 'existence' is arbitrary, whether you call it a myth or a real man or something in between.

Lack of reason for believing it and data that contracts all three features. Since there's no apparent evidence suggesting that it is a giant green ice cube, I wouldn't have any justifiable reason for believing that it is, especially when confronted with evidence to the contrary.

The bold is what counts. We all believe what we want to believe and nothing else. You don't have any reason to believe the sun is a giant green ice cube. You would have to rework a vast array of other beliefs in order to fit that in. It would just be a daunting task with no real payoff.

On a side note, I like how these forums automatically prevent pyramid quoting by removing what would be quoted quotes in replies.

It does keep things nice and neat, doesn't it?

What you created could happen to be the ultimate truth. Being created doesn't automatically make it impossible, although if you created it, then it would follow that a god didn't create it.

I can see how that conclusion could be drawn very easily, yes.

Nothing is an absolute truth except for arguably a few things, such as "I exist." This includes the notion that the Earth is round, which could be false; but since all evidence suggests that it is spherical in shape, acceptance of this as the best current model based on available data is justified by the evidence. It is most probably true, just like the Sun being a green cube is most probably not true.

I agree with everything here. I'm pretty sure I was taking your use of 'justifiable' differently than you were intending before. You are meaning more like 'rational' or 'reasonable' where as I was thinking more like 'right' or 'allowable'. That clears up a lot of the issues I was having I think.

 

[freethinker44]

How about intelligent, freely acting first cause, for starters.

I've heard the first-cause argument about a million times, but I admit, I have never heard the intelligent version.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

Yes, this is what I'm saying.

All definition after 'existence' is arbitrary, whether you call it a myth or a real man or something in between.

I would instead say that the concept exists because otherwise "does X exist?" is meaningless. If I ask if a super-massive black hole exists on the moon, it automatically exists because I've just thought of it if its existence is a given.

The bold is what counts. We all believe what we want to believe and nothing else. You don't have any reason to believe the sun is a giant green ice cube. You would have to rework a vast array of other beliefs in order to fit that in. It would just be a daunting task with no real payoff.

I agree with the third and later sentences, but while people are guilty of the confirmation bias, we also don't fully choose what to believe. That is why I can't just choose to believe that the sun is a giant green ice cube.

It does keep things nice and neat, doesn't it?

Yes.

I can see how that conclusion could be drawn very easily, yes.

Unless you are god, co-authored it with god, etc.

I agree with everything here. I'm pretty sure I was taking your use of 'justifiable' differently than you were intending before. You are meaning more like 'rational' or 'reasonable' where as I was thinking more like 'right' or 'allowable'. That clears up a lot of the issues I was having I think.

Ah.

 

[Sir Doom]

I would instead say that the concept exists because otherwise "does X exist?" is meaningless. If I ask if a super-massive black hole exists on the moon, it automatically exists because I've just thought of it if its existence is a given.

"Does X exist?" is meaningless, yes. I think all variations of it should be replaced with, "What is X?" as that is actually in question.

I agree with the third and later sentences, but while people are guilty of the confirmation bias, we also don't fully choose what to believe. That is why I can't just choose to believe that the sun is a giant green ice cube.

But from my perspective, I am unable to say with any surety that you can't. Even though you've said so. I can guess that you don't and never will, but that's just a guess (rational as it may be).

Unless you are god, co-authored it with god, etc.

All equally as likely as the existence of god in the first place.

 

[camanintx]

That one single crime validates objective moral values and duties in the world and here is the conclusion.

I beg to disagree with you here. If morality is objective then every action would have to be objectively moral or immoral, not just this one. On the other hand, it would only take one example to prove morality is subjective.

 

[camanintx]

1. The nature of who we are points towards the existence of mind/intelligence/spirit - call it what you will, but our ability to think, act, grow, change, our free will - we are not merely mechanical robots... the universe is made up of more than matter and energy - there is also information, laws, forces, and life/intelligences/spirits. I view our spirit as being the animating force of our life and thoughts, and do not believe that our own spirits are the only ones that exist within the universe. As with all things, there are lesser spirits, and greater spirits - the greatest of which, is God.

The nature of who we are points towards intelligence as an emergent property of consciousness, which is an emergent property of the mind, which is an emergent property of life, which is an emergent property of matter, which is an emergent property of energy.

 

[camanintx]

This is an example, If we can't say that Vehicles created themselves, We can't say that Lymphatic system created themselves..Sure there is a maker

Since vehicles are not capable of descent with modification like life, such analogies are meaningless.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

"Does X exist?" is meaningless, yes. I think all variations of it should be replaced with, "What is X?" as that is actually in question.

What is the point in asking, "What's that fifty-ton weight on your shoulder?"

But from my perspective, I am unable to say with any surety that you can't. Even though you've said so. I can guess that you don't and never will, but that's just a guess (rational as it may be).

I suppose it isn't impossible, but it would be a sudden deviation of how my mind has always worked.

All equally as likely as the existence of god in the first place.

The existence of options doesn't make them equally likely to be true, or at least belief in them isn't necessarily equally justifiable. If I present two options,

A: There is an invisible elephant on your head.
B: There is not an invisible elephant on your head.

A and B don't have the same likelihood of being true. They're both technically possible, but based on prior observations of how the universe works, A would contradict various laws of nature. In addition, there's no evidence for A, making belief in it without support.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

If it is not, tell me where did the universe come from and what was there before it started.

I was there before the universe started. The universe was actually a rather large bowel movement I had after eating too many nachos. I wrote a book about it. Many people believe that book. You cannot prove that I wasn't there before the universe. Ha!

If you cannot provide a satisfying answer, "by default" is another evidence that God exists.

Obviously my answer is satisfying, and therefore by default I am what you might call God.

 

[Sir Doom]

What is the point in asking, "What's that fifty-ton weight on your shoulder?"

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.

I suppose it isn't impossible, but it would be a sudden deviation of how my mind has always worked.

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.

The existence of options doesn't make them equally likely to be true, or at least belief in them isn't necessarily equally justifiable.

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.

If I present two options,

A: There is an invisible elephant on your head.
B: There is not an invisible elephant on your head.

A and B don't have the same likelihood of being true. They're both technically possible, but based on prior observations of how the universe works, A would contradict various laws of nature.

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.

In addition, there's no evidence for A, making belief in it without support.

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.

 

[freethinker44]

Arguing over semantics is both fun and productive!

 

[Sir Doom]

Arguing over semantics is both fun and productive!

Too right! :angel2: