Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#361
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Sure, if by "opinion" you mean "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."   Let me give you an example, the statement "X did not walk on water" might not be "provable/verifiable", so the assertion "X did not walk on water" is essentially an opinion in that sense. 
This is incorrect.

The statement, "a human (and or a being or entity that is indistinguishable from a human) cannot walk on water" is NOT an opinion.

If the claim was, "Orion was able to float on his back", this would be a plausible claim.
#362
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TheAtheist
Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.
Topic's author
#363
TheAtheist
TheAtheist's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 54
1
2
9
TheAtheist's avatar
TheAtheist
1
2
9
-->
@Fallaneze
"Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not."
Could you name some of that evidence?

#364
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TheAtheist
Sure. First we need to agree on what evidence means.

Evidence means facts or information indicating whether something is true.

Agree?

#365
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Because the evidence is more in favor of God existing than not.
Let me guess, another ontological argument?
#366
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
This guy is a smart fella you should listen to what he's writing. Don't miss the point, he's trying to give you a starting point where you can be more objective and open-minded about the nature and reality of it all rather than just being ignorant to it. You can label thing as you like but part of the problem is atheists rejecting what evidence consists of particularly when it comes to spirituality or Theism because there isn't some scientist or lab that can replicate something for them, it's almost comical but what we have to work with currently. Evidence is defined as that which is an indicator of something true, when you evaluate all the activity and evidence that correlates with that transcendent reality it's pretty obvious when you get down to it. One has to wonder why it goes over the heads of some folks, particularly the atheist camp. 
It's more of an accumulation of everything involved which is more of an interpretation (not solely), however this interpretation is much stronger than what atheists tend to focus on. There needs to be some starting point, where we can have a better understanding about Theism and the nature of it, it begins with at least....at LEAST, admitting that evidence exists. Until then all these discussions and empty claims of "no evidence" will just be of no progression...it will just be atheists claiming "no evidence.. no evidence" over and over meanwhile the evidence (that which indicates something true) has been there all along lol.
You MUST, look at the evidence that correlates with the nature of God, or the Creator or whatever you want to call that. 
#367
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
...at LEAST, admitting that evidence exists.
Look, True = Fact = Real = Exist = Provable = Indisputable

To support the claim, "god(s) exist", you must make your definition of "god(s)" explicit.

Then you must make your definition of "exist" explicit.

Spinoza does this quite nicely.  Certainly Spinoza's god exists.
#368
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
** This is incorrect.

The statement, "a human (and or a being or entity that is indistinguishable from a human) cannot walk on water" is NOT an opinion.

If the claim was, "Orion was able to float on his back", this would be a plausible claim. **

This is getting fun...Nope, actually it's not incorrect. 

If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......

Technically, scientifically, and philosophically speaking, you can't "prove" that "all" humans cannot walk on water....Sure, you can say humans A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y do not have the ability to walk on water, but this does not necessarily "prove" that human "Z" can not walk on water.  So, you are technically in realm "H" (see below)...so what do you do? you use your experience, logic and judgement (your observation that humans A-Y can not walk on water) to draw a conclusion about human "Z"-- that they can't walk on water, and likewise you use this to make the further generalization that all humans can not walk on.   By the way, I'm right there with you-- I, too, draw the same conclusions...

If there is a claim of something in the past, and you have no evidence ("proof"), you can't make a definitive claim either way....all you can do is simply draw upon your experience, judgement and reasoning to draw forth a conclusion.  It doesn't matter what the even or claim is, one is basically doing the same thing.

The only difference is, you prefer to call some opinions and others "proof" or "facts" based on YOUR experience and judgement.


H.  If there is NO evidence, here it becomes a gray area-- you use judgement, experience, and/or logic to lead you to draw a conclusion.  Technically and philosophically speaking, if there is NO evidence, you can not definitively make a claim either way that something is real or not-- the best, technically/philosophically speaking, you can say is "I have no evidence".  
#369
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
@3RU7AL
**it will just be atheists claiming "no evidence.. no evidence" over and over meanwhile the evidence (that which indicates something true) has been there all along lol. **

I've been with folks in the mountains, and I'll tell them "Looks like there was a bear here...".....And the city slickers will scoff and say "That's B.S.!  I don't see a bear ANYWHERE!   I don't see any evidence!".   Then I'll show them the faint tracks, the bear scat, the claw marks on the trees.....These city slickers just weren't able to see the evidence.  Of course, every now and then you get one guy that's still insistent and says "Well, THAT doesn't PROVE there was a bear here!  For all we know, ANYTHING could have left that evidence."   Some folks, for whatever reason, will simply refuse to see the evidence.   To that guy, I'll usually just smile and think to myself "Ok, if the bear returns, all I have to do is outrun that guy..."




Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence

#370
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of absence
Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of existence.

Existence itself is defined by its obvious indisputability (verifiability beyond reasonable doubt).

You can't seriously claim something "exists" unless it meets some explicit standard-of-evidence.
#371
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
If an event happens in the past, and you have no evidence, you can't make a claim either way (it's true/false, it happened/didn't happen)......
(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.
#372
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** Absence of Evidence is NOT evidence of existence.

Existence itself is defined by its obvious indisputability (verifiability beyond reasonable doubt).

You can't seriously claim something "exists" unless it meets some explicit standard-of-evidence.**



Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists.  If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence.  I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,

Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist.  Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.  







#373
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
**(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.**

Like I said, I"m right there with you-- I draw the same conclusions as you about humans walking on water-- no need to explain the science behind it to me :-)   

But I stand by my statements, you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water, all you are doing is taking your observations and data and making a conclusion (which I happen to agree with) about humans walking on water.  

#374
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Hey hi man. G
Nice day?
Nice day.

So ummmmm, can you give me a quick run over yourself.  (  i said that wrong ) 
I just want to know , Are you a Catholic gutsling?  Thats all. 

Your smart hey. Well i think you are. 
I love smart thinking theists. Well Christians.  

Oh crap. Sorry to jump in. You guys were going good.
' Face palm ' 
Sorry.  Tell me a bit about yourself after. 
Carry on. 





#375
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Yep, I 100% agree-- if you have no evidence , one can't make the claim/assertion that it exists.  If you have no evidence of X, you can't make the claim that X has existence.  I totally agree-- I don't think anyone is making that claim, I know I certainly am not,
I'm glad we can agree that things (EITHER) exist (OR) do not exist.

(IFF) exist = yes (THEN) it is obvious and indisputable and verifiable beyond reasonable doubt (ELSE) IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Likewise, though, you can't make the claim that it doesn't exist or can't exist. 
Hold on, let's not conflate "doesn't exist" and "can't exist". 

We CAN say it "doesn't exist" if it doesn't currently qualify, if it doesn't meet the definition of "exist", otherwise what's the point of having a definition in the first place.

On the other hand, "can't exist' is PURELY HYPOTHETICAL.  Hypothetical proposals are OPINION.  I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

I mean, unless it's LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Sure, you can say it's silly, preposterous, or pure fantasy for X to exist, but you can't base that assertion on "no evidence", you use something else (remember my "H"?) to make that judgement.  
The property of Existence is like a light-switch.  It's either on or off.
#376
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
**(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) has a general density greater than water (THEN) it can't walk on water.

(IFF) a human being (or something indistinguishable from a human being) CAN apparently walk on water (THEN) (EITHER) they have a general density significantly less than water and would be blown about by the slightest breeze (thus being easily distinguishable from a human) (OR) they are walking on something just below the surface of the water.

Humorous Hume can't save you.**

Like I said, I"m right there with you-- I draw the same conclusions as you about humans walking on water-- no need to explain the science behind it to me :-)   

But I stand by my statements, you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water, all you are doing is taking your observations and data and making a conclusion (which I happen to agree with) about humans walking on water.  
When you say "you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water" you're ignoring logic.

(IFF) human = some general density greater than water (among any number of other attibutes) (AND) water = h2o (THEN) human cannot walk on water.

End Of Story.
#377
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
wait what?  What's your question?  

What's a gutsling?
#378
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** When you say "you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water" you're ignoring logic.

(IFF) human = some general density greater than water (among any number of other attibutes) (AND) water = h2o (THEN) human cannot walk on water. **

ahh, so you're saying "logic" is proof, huh ...nice...making a mental note here.  I'm not saying I disagree with that, I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

I am not ignoring logic-- that's exactly what I mean in my "H" statement:  you use experience, judgement and reasoning (i.e. Logic) to draw a conclusion.

What you are now furthering clarifying is that logic constitutes as proof in your book, correct?

#379
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
What you are now furthering clarifying is that logic constitutes as proof in your book, correct?
Sound logic based on explicit AXIOMS = tautological proof.

Why do you think I keep mentioning Spinoza.
#380
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** We CAN say it "doesn't exist" if it doesn't currently qualify, if it doesn't meet the definition of "exist", otherwise what's the point of having a definition in the first place. **

not so sure you can prove something doesn't exist, unless you're solely relying upon "logic".  TO say definitively something doesn't exist requires a, um, pretty extensive amount of knowledge, dontcha think?
#381
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
But just so we are clear, sound logical proof is evidence, right?
#382
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
The property of Existence is like a light-switch.  It's either on or off.
#383
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
"When you say "you technically can't prove that all humans can't walk on water" you're ignoring logic.

(IFF) human = some general density greater than water (among any number of other attibutes) (AND) water = h2o (THEN) human cannot walk on water.

End Of Story. "



Ahhhh, but aren't basing this statement/claim (in bold above) on an assumption "That the only way a human can walk on water is if their density is less than that of water?"  What if there is some other reason that would enable a human to walk on water?  

Or are you saying this is the ONLY reason a human would be able to walk on water?
#384
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Ahhhh, but aren't basing this statement/claim (in bold above) on an assumption "That the only way a human can walk on water is if their density is less than that of water?"  What if there is some other reason that would enable a human to walk on water?  

Or are you saying this is the ONLY reason a human would be able to walk on water?
Present your argument already.
#385
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** The property of Existence is like a light-switch.  It's either on or off. **

Agreed.  The Law of Non-Contradiction (aka Law of Contradiction), courtesy of Aristotle...basically states that two contradicting propositions can not both be true in the same sense at the same time.  

This can be formalized in different ways, the two following statements can not both be true at the same time:

    Proposition #1 - X is A
    Proposition #2 - X is not A

Doesn't matter what "A" is....."A can be "existence", "yellow", "blue", "male", "female", "dog", whatever-- the Law still applies.

So, I agree-- Something either exists or doesn't exist, it can't be both.  A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both.  A lightswitch is either on  or it's off, it can't be both.  A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both.  Of course, lots of interesting things start to happen when you start redefining words....

I would argue this, though:

    - If you can't prove Proposition #1 is true, then it leaves open the possibility that Proposition #2 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition#2 IS true, but rather COULD BE true
    - Likewise, if you can't prove Proposition #2 is true, then it leave open the possibility that Proposition #1 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition #1 IS true, but rather could be true


#386
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** Present your argument already.**

In time...but first, are you saying that "DENSITY" is the only explanation for a human to walk on water?  
#387
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both. 
A banana can be more than one color.

A lightswitch is either on  or it's off, it can't be both. 
I agree.

A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both.
Hermaphrodites are considered by some to be half-male - Klinefelter and Swyer syndrome are also somewhat gray areas.
#388
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
- If you can't prove Proposition #1 is true, then it leaves open the possibility that Proposition #2 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition#2 IS true, but rather COULD BE true - Likewise, if you can't prove Proposition #2 is true, then it leave open the possibility that Proposition #1 is true.  It doesn't mean Proposition #1 IS true, but rather could be true
All alligators are crocodiles, but not all crocodiles are alligators.
#389
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Look, True = Fact = Real = Exist = Provable = Indisputable

It does all by itself, that's the point. 

To support the claim, "god(s) exist", you must make your definition of "god(s)" explicit.

Definition of God is universal. 

Then you must make your definition of "exist" explicit.

Definition of God is universal...

Spinoza does this quite nicely.  Certainly Spinoza's god exists.

Spinoza's God  I have no quarrel with. 

#390
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
A banana is either yellow, or not yellow-- it can't be both.  
A banana can be more than one color.

A lightswitch is either on  or it's off, it can't be both.  
I agree.

A person is either male, or not male-- it can't be both.
Hermaphrodites are considered by some to be half-male - Klinefelter and Swyer syndrome are also somewhat gray areas. **

 You get my point though, right?  An object/thing can't be X and not X at at the same time.  A banana can't be multicolor and not multicolor at the same time.  An object can't be a hermaphrodite, and NOT a hermaphrodite at the same time.  

Just trying to illustrate the law of non-contradiction.