What if debates are pointless and no decision can be made?

[The Transcended Omniverse]

I've always wondered the possibility if the concept of life after death and the existence of God is no different than those types of philosophical debates that go on and on where one side of the debate will argue against the other all day long, but no given conclusion can be reached one way or the other. We just simply have nothing more than one side which is biased towards his/her worldview while the other is biased towards his/her worldview. But from an unbiased perspective, wouldn't it be the case that no decision can be made one way or the other?

This is a debate that has been going on for ages. If there were a definite conclusion to be reached, then we wouldn't have this debate drag on for so long. Even in regards to claimed evidence out there, this all still comes down to a matter of debate. This means that no decision can ever be made as to whether there is or is not actual evidence for the soul, afterlife, and God. There are claimed miraculous experiences. Such experiences have been debated for ages which means there is a load of debates and arguments out there that attempt to support and debunk such experiences.

These are debates by highly intelligent and well trained skeptics and believers. Now let's pretend that you are nowhere near as intelligent as these people. What leads you to, for example, draw the conclusion that God, the soul, and the afterlife do exist? Is it because you see a flaw in the skeptical arguments and debates? I think such flaws have been well addressed by the skeptical community already. I think such highly intelligent skeptics would have been well aware of such flaws and would have addressed them already.

This would have to mean that you haven't looked into such arguments. Even if you did and have still found flaws with the skeptical arguments, then the same concept applies here again and it will always apply for hundreds of years or however long this debate regarding the existence of God continues on. In other words, no matter what flaws you find, they will always be addressed which means I don't think you can ever come to any given conclusion. In order for anyone to come to a conclusion, then there has to be a weak spot (flaws) in the side that either debates for the existence of God/soul/afterlife or the skeptical side which debates against the existence of God/soul/afterlife.

These weak spots would allow you to finally see who is more likely to be right. For example, if the skeptics were somehow really dumb people and their arguments had major weaknesses, then it would be quite obvious that the believers would be likely to be right in their arguments. But since both sides of the debate are highly intelligent and well trained people, then I am quite sure such weak spots have been thoroughly filled in and thoroughly addressed. Especially since this has been a debate going on for ages.

To think that there are such weak spots that even an average lay person can point out and build a conviction on, then I think that would be ignorant and close minded because that would imply that these intelligent people who have debated this topic for such a long time are so dumb that even the average lay person can see how they are wrong. In other words, I don't think there is any way to come to any given conclusion. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong here. But I am just not seeing that. Even if you were someone highly intelligent who has drawn a conclusion, then I think everything I said still applies.

 

[Kemosloby]

If it was something we could conclude then God should just show himself. But as it is he prefers we believe without proof, for whatever reason.

 

[Father Heathen]

If it was something we could conclude then God should just show himself. But as it is he prefers we believe without proof, for whatever reason.

How do you know that 'he' prefers belief or worship? Why would that be important to such a being? Surely 'he' wouldn't gift our species with the ability to reason only to fault us for using it?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Frankly you can use the same logic about Bigfoot or the Greek pantheon.

As far as I can tell according to logic, the defualt position on any positive claim is open minded disbelief. Since no one can prove that there is no deities or that there are deities, the logical position is to no believe in the deity claim (so atheist) and to be open minded, aka knowing you could be wrong (so agnostic).

So as far as I know, given the lack of evidence, being an agnostic atheist is the logical conclusion.

Could be wrong though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I've always wondered the possibility if the concept of life after death and the existence of God is no different than those types of philosophical debates that go on and on where one side of the debate will argue against the other all day long, but no given conclusion can be reached one way or the other. We just simply have nothing more than one side which is biased towards his/her worldview while the other is biased towards his/her worldview. But from an unbiased perspective, wouldn't it be the case that no decision can be made one way or the other?

This is a debate that has been going on for ages. If there were a definite conclusion to be reached, then we wouldn't have this debate drag on for so long. Even in regards to claimed evidence out there, this all still comes down to a matter of debate. This means that no decision can ever be made as to whether there is or is not actual evidence for the soul, afterlife, and God. There are claimed miraculous experiences. Such experiences have been debated for ages which means there is a load of debates and arguments out there that attempt to support and debunk such experiences.

These are debates by highly intelligent and well trained skeptics and believers. Now let's pretend that you are nowhere near as intelligent as these people. What leads you to, for example, draw the conclusion that God, the soul, and the afterlife do exist? Is it because you see a flaw in the skeptical arguments and debates? I think such flaws have been well addressed by the skeptical community already. I think such highly intelligent skeptics would have been well aware of such flaws and would have addressed them already.

This would have to mean that you haven't looked into such arguments. Even if you did and have still found flaws with the skeptical arguments, then the same concept applies here again and it will always apply for hundreds of years or however long this debate regarding the existence of God continues on. In other words, no matter what flaws you find, they will always be addressed which means I don't think you can ever come to any given conclusion. In order for anyone to come to a conclusion, then there has to be a weak spot (flaws) in the side that either debates for the existence of God/soul/afterlife or the skeptical side which debates against the existence of God/soul/afterlife.

These weak spots would allow you to finally see who is more likely to be right. For example, if the skeptics were somehow really dumb people and their arguments had major weaknesses, then it would be quite obvious that the believers would be likely to be right in their arguments. But since both sides of the debate are highly intelligent and well trained people, then I am quite sure such weak spots have been thoroughly filled in and thoroughly addressed. Especially since this has been a debate going on for ages.

To think that there are such weak spots that even an average lay person can point out and build a conviction on, then I think that would be ignorant and close minded because that would imply that these intelligent people who have debated this topic for such a long time are so dumb that even the average lay person can see how they are wrong. In other words, I don't think there is any way to come to any given conclusion. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong here. But I am just not seeing that. Even if you were someone highly intelligent who has drawn a conclusion, then I think everything I said still applies.

It's not like people won't "find out" anyways. The progression of time waits for no one. "0)

 

[Kemosloby]

How do you know that 'he' prefers belief or worship? Why would that be important to such a being? Surely 'he' wouldn't gift our species with the ability to reason only to fault us for using it?

Because Jesus said so in his exchange with Thomas. Thomas needed proof, but Jesus said, John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I suppose if God communicates with us through our conscience and wants us to be guided by the spirit and "hear his voice" If we were always second guessing and needing reason and proof, maybe a signed document that the instruction was from God it would be cumbersome. So who knows, maybe it's something along those lines. They don't really spell out why, the expect us to figure it out.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because Jesus said so in his exchange with Thomas. Thomas needed proof, but Jesus said, John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

So you're basing it on what a particular group of mortals wrote about god? There are thousands of religions, each with thousands of variations, and all have their own sacred texts claiming to reveal god and his will. Of course they can't all be true, so the question is why should we trust that yours specifically, if any, is the truth?

 

[Kemosloby]

So you're basing it on what a particular group of mortals wrote about god? There are thousands of religions, each with thousands of variations, and all have their own sacred texts claiming to reveal god and his will. Of course they can't all be true, so the question is why should we trust that yours specifically, if any, is the truth?

I can't say or it would violate or undermine the RF mission.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If it was something we could conclude then God should just show himself. But as it is he prefers we believe without proof, for whatever reason.

God has an obvious logical reason to not automatically show himself to everybody: faith, we have to be open to finding him. Which most of us do sooner or later

But why this proposed mystical invisible natural mechanism that created the universe, should hide itself so completely to everyone... is perhaps a little more difficult to answer

 

[Skwim]

God has an obvious logical reason to not automatically show himself to everybody: faith,

Really? Just how did you come upon this little piece of information?

faith, we have to be open to finding him. Which most of us do sooner or later

Why is it logical that god not automatically show himself and demand that we have faith that he exists?


What is so preferable about having faith that god exists rather than knowing he exists?

.