There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 554
#331
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
How do you know he created you?
Only God can create life. Plus, He said so.

Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.

Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity. 
OK. But please keep in mind that is your qualification, not mine.

if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. 
Still your qualification, not mine. I know who I believe.

How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.

Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.

See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?

Good job
Thanks. Remember that when you get the temptation to run and dodge.
#332
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
How do you know he created you?
Only God can create life.
<br>
Any supporting evidence for this?

Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.
For example?

Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity. 
OK. But please keep in mind that is your qualification, not mine.

if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. 
Still your qualification, not mine. I know who I believe.
What is your qualification for the "Judeo-Christian" God?

How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
Can you please elaborate on this?

Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.
This is an ad-populum fallacy [1]. 

See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
I got the point already. No need to repeat this.

Good job
Thanks.
No problem.

Remember that when you get the temptation to run and dodge.
I'm not that type of person ;)
#333
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
How do you know he created you?
Only God can create life. 

Any supporting evidence for this?
I generally do not waste my time on silly questions. So asking me for evidence for things like the sun being hot, only women giving birth, 2+3=5, and God being the only creator of life, will get dismissed without ceremony.

Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.

For example?
Look it up yourself. Why should I provide you non-biblical records of God appearing anywhere?

Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity. 
OK. But please keep in mind that is your qualification, not mine.

if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God. 
Still your qualification, not mine. I know who I believe.

What is your qualification for the "Judeo-Christian" God?
Post #329 of this thread:
"As there is only one God, He needs no qualification."
Pay attention and we won't need to waste time like this again.


How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.

Can you please elaborate on this?
No. I was clear enough.

Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.

This is an ad-populum fallacy [1]. 
No, it isn't. The ad-populum fallacy is an argument that states a belief is TRUE because many believe it is.

That was not what you asked. You asked, "How was the Bible CREDIBLE?" Billions of people testifying over hundreds of years  that the bible is credible does lend it credibility.

See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?

I got the point already. No need to repeat this.
My experience says it needed repeating.

Remember that when you get the temptation to run and dodge.

I'm not that type of person ;)
Aren't you an atheist?
#334
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that god does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that god does not exist?
#335
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe that every claim and every counter-claim must be supported by a sound logical statement based on explicit AXIOMS.

Pretending to shift the burden-of-proof exclusively to one side is a logical fallacy.

If no one up until that point made a counterclaim. how could they have shifted the burden? If one makes a claim, is it not enough to simply request they offer substance?
#336
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Christen
Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that god does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that god does not exist?
Whoever affirms either claim. In my judgement, it's far simpler to substantiate God's existence than it is to substantiate God's "nonexistence." To those stubbornly immersed in semantics, one learns that many of these disputes boil down to lexicon. Case in point: if we operate on the definition of exist which delineates having actual being whether material or spiritual, then God, by definition, "exists." I find this method of substantiation particularly unsatisfactory, and in my pursuit to engage those in argument over the subject, I tend to challenge the alleged boundaries of material and immaterial/spiritual/abstract.

#337
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
How do you know he created you?
Only God can create life. 

Any supporting evidence for this?
I generally do not waste my time on silly questions. So asking me for evidence for things like the sun being hot, only women giving birth, 2+3=5, and God being the only creator of life, will get dismissed without ceremony.
This statement would be true only if the premise (only God can create life, aka creationism) is self-evidently true. It's not. Abiogenesis and Evolution directly counter the notion of creationism. How is creationism more credible than those I just presented?

Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
Plenty.

For example?
Look it up yourself. Why should I provide you non-biblical records of God appearing anywhere?
You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.

What is your qualification for the "Judeo-Christian" God?
Post #329 of this thread:
"As there is only one God, He needs no qualification."
Pay attention and we won't need to waste time like this again.
You made a claim that there is only one God. What is your proof?

How is the bible credible?
It has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.

Can you please elaborate on this?
No. I was clear enough.
It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples. 

Not to mention the cloud of billions of believers who testify to its credibility.

This is an ad-populum fallacy [1]. 
No, it isn't. The ad-populum fallacy is an argument that states a belief is TRUE because many believe it is.

That was not what you asked. You asked, "How was the Bible CREDIBLE?" Billions of people testifying over hundreds of years  that the bible is credible does lend it credibility.
Let me reiterate my point:
How can you take the passages of the bible at face value?

See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?

I got the point already. No need to repeat this.
My experience says it needed repeating.
Repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless.

Aren't you an atheist?
Agnostic. Big Difference.

#338
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
Abiogenesis and Evolution directly counter the notion of creationism. How is creationism more credible than those I just presented?
Evolution says nothing about how life starts. Evolution is concerned only with change after life begins. As for abiogenesis, there is not a single piece of evidence for it in existence.

But I told you my views. If you think something else is credible, that is your business.

You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.
Nonsense. You asked if there were, I said there were. You can look it up, but I am under no obligation to offer it to you. It is not part of my argument and matters not one bit to me.

You made a claim that there is only one God. What is your proof?
Logic. God is omnipotent. Another omnipotent being cannot exist.

It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples.
Like most liberal atheists, you are confused and thinking I am seeking validation from you, or that you are somehow vetting me. My answer was enough for me. Accept or reject it.

How can you take the passages of the bible at face value?
I do not take them at face value. You asked how is the bible credible and I told you.

Repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless.
I repeated because my experience informed me it was needed. If you think repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless, don't repeat things for the sake of doing so.

Agnostic. Big Difference
Not in reality. It's a difference without distinction.
#339
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
Evolution says nothing about how life starts. Evolution is concerned only with change after life begins.
You you stated that God created you. I take this to mean that you believe what Genesis 1:27 states, that man was directly created by God. This, evolution would be a counter to creationism as stated in the bible.

As for abiogenesis, there is not a single shred of evidence for it in existence 
See Urey-Miller Experiment:

Logic. God is omnipotent. Another omnipotent being cannot exist.
So you are making another claim, that God is omnipotent. If that were the case, then how would you explain the omnipotence paradox?

I do not take them at face value. You asked how is the bible credible and I told you.
You believe that the bible is credible enough that you directly took quotes out of it to answer two of my questions, ergo, you believe that the quotes are true in and of themselves. Credibility denotes some aspect of truthfulness. If it didn’t, then I could take a quote out of Harry Potter and state it as fact. You stated that it was credible (that the content inside it is true enough to quote directly) because many people believed it over centuries. This is an ad populum fallacy. Just because many people believe a source does not make it matter-of-fact. For example, everyone believed, for well over a millennium, that the Geocentric model of the universe was correct because Plato said so. We now know that it is not the case. The bible is no different in this regard.

I repeated because my experience informed me it was needed.
How much experience do you have in having discussions with me? Very little.

If you think repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless, don’t repeat things for the sake of doing so.
My point exactly.

Not in reality. It’s a difference without distinction
But I told you my views. If you think something else is credible, that is your business.

You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.
Nonsense. You asked if there were, I said there were. You can look it up, but I am under no obligation to offer it to you. It is not part of my argument and matters not one bit to me.

It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples.
Like most liberal atheists, you are confused and thinking I am seeking validation from you, or that you are somehow vetting me. My answer was enough for me. Accept or reject it.
I find it funny how both you and Athias were adamantly insisting that 3RU7AL substantiate his claims, yet when I ask you two to do the same, you both refuse to do so.
#340
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Fallaneze
You’re right. There will never be closure on this issue. It’s like trench warfare: completely static, with neither side willing to budge.

#341
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Evolution says nothing about how life starts.
And creation doesn't either.
We know that Dinosaurs existed but your creation fable fails to account for them.
#342
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
You you stated that God created you. I take this to mean that you believe what Genesis 1:27 states, that man was directly created by God. This, evolution would be a counter to creationism as stated in the bible.
It cannot be. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began. Google it and see.

See Urey-Miller Experiment:
Miller Urey was a failed experiment. It produced no evidence for abiogenesis and every subsequent experiment to date has failed.

Miller Urey was faulty, and later "corrected" experiments failed. In fact, Miller Urey proved again that life only comes from life. Your knowledge on abiogenesis needs serious updating.

Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.

There are, however, many problems with their methodology. According to Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:

If you are not the sort of person who will reject science because the scientist is Christian, read this.
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis

So you are making another claim, that God is omnipotent. If that were the case, then how would you explain the omnipotence paradox?
You keep jumping. My claim was it is  logical. Deal with that first. Given the definition of omnipotent, Is it logical for there to be 2 omnipotent entities?

And the omnipotence paradox is explained by the fact that the world is full of poor thinkers and people with low IQ.

You believe that the bible is credible enough that you directly took quotes out of it to answer two of my questions, ergo, you believe that the quotes are true in and of themselves.
I believe the quotes are true. Please stop providing beliefs for me and ignoring things I've said that contradict your provided belief. "In and of themselves" is your substituted lie that ignores my stated reasons for why the bible is credible.

You stated that it was credible (that the content inside it is true enough to quote directly)
No sir. The contents inside it is credible enough to quote directly. YOU asked about credibility. Now you want my answer to be about truth. Why did you not ask how was the bible true?

..because many people believed it over centuries. This is an ad populum fallacy.
Only if you change "credible" to "true". Please stop the fake semantic ploys. Legal courts use wetness testimonies everyday to show credibility. I answered the question you asked. If you wanted to know why the bible was true, you should have asked that.

Just because many people believe a source does not make it matter-of-fact.
Lol. Trying to hide the silly semantical game you're playing, so you use the weird term, "matter-of-fact" here. You could not say, "...does not make it true", for that would expose your fakery.

Many people believing a source makes it more credible. That is a fact your word play cannot defeat.

How much experience do you have in having discussions with me? Very little.
Everyone likes to think they are unique, but you are pretty run-the-mill. I can almost predict your questions and responses. Do you know how many times I've had to educate some yokel about the debunked Miller/Urey experiments?

If you think repeating something for the sake of doing so is pointless, don’t repeat things for the sake of doing so.

My point exactly.
OK. And I will repeat things when my experience advises. Why you can't see that that this is not for the sake of doing so, is not my problem.

Either way, why I repeat things will be my choice, regardless of what you think.

Learn religions.com
Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions.

I find it funny how both you and Athias were adamantly insisting that 3RU7AL substantiate his claims, yet when I ask you two to do the same, you both refuse to do so.
We substantiated. We just refused to do it the way you wanted.

You jump as soon as a question is answered, never acknowledging that your comments leading to the question were wrong.

This is not an interrogation or me seeking validation from you, and what you find funny is immaterial.

You have asked all your questions and have not been able to show illogic or inconsistency, so now you will make some vague claim that I refuse to substantiate my claims. Yet I answered every question you asked.

The topic of the thread and spirituality have been forgotten by you as you meander with never ending questions who’s answers you pretend are positive claims that need to be immediately substantiated, while the original claim prompting your question is ignored and forgotten.

You wanted Athias and I to play your little atheist game of being the validator and we being the supplicants seeking your approval.

We didn't. Sorry. This is the real world.
#343
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
You’re right. There will never be closure on this issue. It’s like trench warfare: completely static, with neither side willing to budge.
Budge on what? Logic? This is not a negotiation. Truth is not arrived at by consensus.

Here was my first post in this thread to Fallaneze.

You are letting yourself be fooled by an illusion.

For very many people, the question does get settled. But new people are always coming into the system.

Closure happens to individuals, not to groups. Your implication is that anything short of total and instantaneous closure is not closure."

Very many people find closure and truly know the answer. Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?

Neither he, nor anyone else who responded to me addressed my question.

Now here you are, equating "closure" to your personal satisfaction of how well your questions are answered.

So, again, Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
#344
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
So that's basically it then.

One can neither prove nor disprove something that is unprovable. 

So it's been confirmed that there will never be closure on whether a god exists or not.

Though I think we already new that before we started.

#345
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
As I told you, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and as of now, that opinion doesn't need to be logical or make sense.

Though the fact that you left with your opinion intact was really not something you needed to tell us.

In the main time, people will continue becoming theists by the millions, finding enough closure to reach a decision.

As I said, closure happens to individuals, not groups.

You dodged my question again, but we know why. Carry on.
#346
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Does it matter which variety of theist the millions are choosing or not choosing to become?
#347
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
No. The person finds closure.

Even some of those finding closure are atheists.


#348
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
So are you saying that atheists close on the fact that a god doesn't exist?
#349
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Sure. There are hard atheists who, for them, the subject is closed.

Closure doesn't need to be correct. It's just based on each persons personal opinion.
#350
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Truth is not arrived at by consensus.
Followed by
people will continue becoming theists by the million
never mind.

#351
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
never mind
I didn't.
#352
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Not understanding is not the same as not minding.
Why are you trying to hide your responses to me? It's easy to scan threads to see if I want to comment on anyone's posts.
#353
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
@disgusting

Not understanding is not the same as not minding.
You said "never mind." I didn't.

 easy to scan threads to see if I want to comment on anyone's posts.
Then what are you buttaching about?
#354
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
#355
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Christen
Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that BigFoot does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that BigFoot does not exist?
#356
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Case in point: if we operate on the definition of exist which delineates having actual being whether material or spiritual, then God, by definition, "exists."
How have you determined that "god" (or any other spiritual entity) has "actual being"?

I mean, does Shiva also have "actual being"?
#357
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
One can neither prove nor disprove something that is unprovable. 
Just like BigFoot.

There will never be closure on whether BigFoot exists.
#358
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
We are dealing with principles, and poor thinkers cannot understand that.

Some sightings of bigfoot could be hoaxes, not delusions. Some could be honest mistakes. Some sightings could be deliberate falsehoods following an agenda.

It is true that you cannot know all sightings of bigfoot, and thus cannot claim delusional those sightings you have no knowledge of.

You are operating on the juvenile dichotomy of all sightings of bigfoot being either true or delusional. But those aren't the only 2 possible options.

Logic is the enemy of bias.
#359
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional or false of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional or false is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
#360
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
An actual sighting of something lurking in the undergrowth, irrespective of what it might or might not be, is what it is.

The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.

Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.