-->
@Tarik
All Im saying is that imagination doesn't equal reality. Until you have a fact that indicates your concept is true, then it's just your imagination.
Yes, No, I don't know
Posts
Total:
165
-->
@Sum1hugme
Until you have a fact that indicates your concept is true, then it's just your imagination.
But why do I in particular have to have it is my point, facts are above and beyond one person so heaven and hells existence (or lack thereof) isn’t predicated on whether or not I can prove it to you it’s predicated on just that it existing (or not).
-->
@Tarik
You can make up an infinite number of imaginary things. It's up to you to show that they aren't imaginary.
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can make up an infinite number of imaginary things.
Except I never made up the concept of an afterlife, that concept existed long before me.
-->
@Bones
My no is as certain as the no which I give to people asking me whether there are invisible naked men dancing my room right now.
Reducing God to an absurdity doesn't help your case any. That's what many of you snobby atheists don't seem to understand, the concept of a Creator God is not an absurd proposition. I mean, you basically have two options...either God exists or God doesn't. Those who correlate the products of the universe with intelligence have just as much reason in the game as you do. So don't insult my intelligence.
Comparing God to silly things is simply silly. Not only that, but brilliant thinkers and philosophers have considered the concept well worth theorizing and debating for a very long time. So I don't know if you care, from what I've seen probably not but it makes you appear very small minded making comments like this. Perhaps go back and read the OP and see if you can comment on what I asked you to. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may not be that stupid, but if this is all you got you probably should have not commented at all.
But do me a favor if you decide to give some intelligent reasoning why God cannot exist, don't respond with a bunch of strawmen and atheist-bashing-the-Bible junk before you even know my beliefs and what this topic has asked. I want you to to simply evaluate your own method of reasoning why a Creator cannot exist, or does not exist, so this has nothing to do with religion at the moment.
-->
@oromagi
dunno
I believe that, but I don't know why you think it. With all the information available why don't you know? what is lacking that the options aren't clear enough?
-->
@RationalMadman
The god I believe/know to be real is, in human psyche terms, sociopathic and apathetic. She is also rather feminine, we are here to impress and entertain her.You can think I'm insane, I accept that. I can't make you go through what I did, including clinicial depression where you screamed in your head at god to give you a reason to live and then the reasons came the next day, indisputably. You don't know my life or story, I'm telling you there's something out there and it's apathetic and sadistic but not without redeeming features. The god doesn't want us all to suffer, that's not entertaining to watch, it's more fun if pleasure and characters to root for are mixed in.Everything in reality actually fits this type of god, the rest falls into place after you first reach out and get your own answers (won't be the same as mine).
First of all I appreciate your in depth response, I think you are reacting to what you see in reality which is plenty fair. However, what if what you see right now in this part of creation is a very small fraction of experience? like say, perhaps you are in a simulation within a much more massive simulation where things may not be so rigid and harsh? or what if you are confined temporarily to a very limited sect of creation to learn some things? If I gave you a series of tests and some of those tests were more severe in nature would that mean that all the tests, including the test giver were only of that same nature?
Well maybe you're right, God being sadistic in all...but I'm just saying that our perceptions and personal experiences often fail at highlighting the whole of life.
We also discussed God being female once before, I guess you never considered what I had to say about God having no gender role (neither male nor female) but rather God has attributes and qualities of creative expression play out in God's creation. Some people get confused with created things as opposed to God's nature. I don't think God is one thing or another, more like creation, including the duality between male and female are expressions of both qualities of God. There are many incarnations (incarnated beings) though, that take on male and female roles. Sometimes, souls will have experiences with either of those types but they all come out of a unified singular Source where all things exist within It.
-->
@DeadFire27
I DON'T KNOW:
Are you sure? what does your intuition tell you?
I joined this site as a traditional Christian, but, after my humiliating loss to Bones (my first debate), well, I started to doubt myself. I had never actually questioned God before, but the points against it make sense.
I think that's fine, but don't throw in the towel because of a loss about some things you haven't considered. You don't have to give up your natural response to life that God exists, beliefs are flexible in the sense that there is nothing about God, creation or the proposition of a soul that you would ever need to forfeit because there is no reasoning that can show of their nonexistence.
There may be ideas, dogma and preconceived notions about God that another debater can debunk or pin you in a corner because they helped you see the nonsense in some belief you hold true to. But despite all that, God as a concept (and even a reality) will always stand tall and true no matter the argument put forth.
If you want good reason to maintain your belief in God, hook up with me and ask me some tough questions or send me a PM and I'll give you some interesting rebuttals to whoever you think is getting an advantage over you.
At worst, I'll have you suspend some of your personal beliefs to see other options about God's existence.
However, there is a reason I don't personally identify with Atheism either.
That will probably always stay with you, because you cannot escape your true nature. Even staunch atheists at some point, will be so consumed with their thoughts about God and who they really are will need more than materialism to fill their natural curiosity. I mean look at the religion forum, they are obsessed with the topic even though they bash Theists. They cannot help themselves and even though they play on the wrong side the fragrance of what they really are follows them around.
No matter what, don't identify with any belief or ideology that could strip away your potential. If anything, just say you don't know. Never say yeah....I'm an atheist and a materialist because believe me, even though they play hardball they have no idea what exists and what doesn't. Don't let them fool you.
Death.Where do we go?
Many different places. Creation is massive, there are multiple parallel worlds and so each soul has a very long journey ahead of them.
There is no scientific evidence anywhere which proves where our spirits go, so the only option I can see is a deity. Or deities.
True....Science cannot reach that which transcends the physical boundaries so be clear in your understanding that science is simply a method of study that deals with material phenomenon, it has no life, truth or knowledge of its own. We formulate theories based on what we find of the physical world and people make interpretations from what they see. But the problem with that, is they don't see everything so the materialist mumbo jumbo is a bunch of speculations from certain people who have very limited tools'
Just remember science is a neutral study, it doesn't make any claims about God's existence only people do. A limited one at that in the sense that it is not equipped to handle spiritual phenomenon, that is where religion and spirituality pick up the ball.
Science and spirituality have no conflict believe it or not, they both study two different natures of human experience and so they are in harmony. Don't get that twisted with religious propositions because God's existence and scientific study flow harmoniously together.
So, agnostic. And until someone proves where we go when we die, I'm staying this way.
Well there's flat out proof that souls exist independent of the physical body during NDE's. You can interpret that however you want, but it is evidence of the soul having conscious experiences OUTSIDE the confines of the material body. Religion and spirituality have been proposing the souls existence as long as man has existed. Paranormal encounters all over the world signifies the same is true, that life transcends the physical world. This amount of experience isn't people's imaginations, that's what atheists want you to believe so they can coddle their nonsense materialistic worldview in spite of the actual evidence.
-->
@Sum1hugme
Nah, it's just imaginary. There is nothing empirical about the concept of god to tie it to reality. All there is is a concept, the same as the concept of unicorns or leprechauns, but nothing empirical to indicate it isn't also imaginary.
I want to know your actual reasoning for why God cannot exist. I need your personal interpretation for why the universe cannot be a product of God. I mean honestly, it is very easy to correlate the processes of the universe with intelligence so a Creator is a working proposition, not just a concept. In other words, it CAN be tied to reality sir.
-->
@zedvictor4
The fact is, no one is actually able to know or explain, how anything can exist.
Lol, sure pal. I know better than getting you involved. You oughta know what I believe by now anyways, yet I always have to repeat myself and deal with all your strawmen. You're the worst kind of person to have any intelligent dialogue with.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Most of what you wrote I would agree with. I would work on tightening up your arguments but they are sound propositions mainly because they align with reality.
the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
That's because we shouldn't be focused on "design", rather function. Harping on design tends to get people to focus on imperfection of such design, and then rejection of that theory. Yet the universe was not created as a work of perfection....it was intended to function as need be. Death, decay and spontaneous events are purposefully on display yet by nature imperfect.
If we focus more on function rather than perfection or design it's easy to ascertain and correlate the products o the universe with intelligence, and is almost unavoidable unless a person is seriously conditioned to believe that creation cannot be possible. Or better yet, that it's stupid to believe.
Get people to focus on the processes involved in creating a universe, there is no need to invoke perfection. To believe that inanimate forces could begin to intelligently construct a working intelligent world is absolute nonsense. It is illogical and absurd. So if you correlate processes with intelligence the work is easy.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Reducing God to an absurdity doesn't help your case any.
No, I am actually giving a very serious answer and telling the complete truth. The reason I say "my no is as certain as the no which I give to people asking me whether there are invisible naked men dancing my room right now" is because neither is actually a no, it is a dunno leaning drastically towards a no. By nature of the impossibility of proving negatives, I can never prove that there isn't a God, just like how I cannot prove there aren't invisible naked men dancing in my room right now.
That's what many of you snobby atheists don't seem to understand, the concept of a Creator God is not an absurd proposition.
It seems pretty absurd to me, but I wasn't trying to reflect that through the comparison. You can use the "Russels teapot" analogy if you wish.
I mean, you basically have two options...either God exists or God doesn't. Those who correlate the products of the universe with intelligence have just as much reason in the game as you do. So don't insult my intelligence.
Not only that, but brilliant thinkers and philosophers have considered the concept well worth theorizing and debating for a very long time.
Once upon a time the geocentric model was considered a concept worth theorising and debating about. However, times have changed. If you go attend a cosmology conferences, there’s a lot of talk about the origin and nature of the universe; there is no talk about what role God might have played in bringing the universe about. It is not an idea that is taken seriously. Furthermore, there’s a recent survey that asked philosophers thirty big questions. It is common knowledge that philosophers don’t agree on anything, but there are three questions had a great amount of agreement: external reality exists, science tells us something about that external reality, and God does not exist. These are the ideas, out of every single philosophical idea there is, that philosophers are in general agreement on.
So I don't know if you care, from what I've seen probably not but it makes you appear very small minded making comments like this.
I do care, if there is an all loving guy out there you best believe I want to know about him, but from what I can tell, no such wishful idea exists.
Perhaps go back and read the OP and see if you can comment on what I asked you to. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you may not be that stupid, but if this is all you got you probably should have not commented at all.
No I didn't read the post, I just felt like I wanted express my atheism. But if you want some reasoning, I'll give you a little brain teaser.
- The Occam's Razor, also known as the law of parsimony states that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. The principle deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories. The principle can also be expressed as “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” . Thus, my application of Occam's Razor can be framed by theism versus metaphysical naturalism. Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being).
- Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.
This ones small, I just want to test how sharp you are before I go all out.
But do me a favor if you decide to give some intelligent reasoning why God cannot exist, don't respond with a bunch of strawmen and atheist-bashing-the-Bible junk before you even know my beliefs and what this topic has asked.
The bible contradictions and shenanigans with certain individuals is just me having fun and trolling. I can be articulate if I want.
I want you to to simply evaluate your own method of reasoning why a Creator cannot exist, or does not exist, so this has nothing to do with religion at the moment.
I think my reasoning is pretty good.
-->
@EtrnlVw
You said it.
Intelligent dialogue.
And belief.
True.
You believe
And I respond with intelligent dialogue.
Basic truth.
You are unable to know or explain how anything can exist.
Ooops.
It was a God what did it,
I forgot.
-->
@Tarik
You didn't have to for it be imaginary. I wasn't the first child to imagine a monster under my bed, it doesn't make it less imaginary
-->
@EtrnlVw
I never argued that god cannot exist. I invite you to demonstrate one fact that shows the universe had a creator. Otherwise it's all in your head.
There's the "your all mentally ill" argument finally popping up.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Does God exist?
That depends on what you are calling God.
In most cases my answer is no because the God being proposed contradicts logic. Like a timeless creator of the universe (creation is an action, actions are necessarily a product of time). Or an all loving, all powerful God who created a place of torment and torture where we all end up if we don’t follow his rules. No being capable of creating such a place could possibly fit any coherent definition of all loving.
Once we cast all the contradictions aside, I would say it’s more reasonable to believe God doesn’t exist than to believe he does, but in terms of knowledge my answer would be I don’t know.
As far as why I believe it’s more reasonable to believe he doesn’t exist, quite simply because that’s the default position; Nothing exists until it has been shown to exist. If your child asks you if the tooth ferry is real and you answer them honestly, I’m willing to bet your answer is “no” despite having no evidence to support that assertion.
As far as how I deal with the arguments presented by theists supporting his existence my position is that they all fail, aka there is no evidence. I find it curious that you write this answer off as a lack of thought, It’s almost as if you don’t understand how the burden of proof works. I don’t need a reason to not believe, I need a reason to believe. The mere fact that I find every argument I have ever heard supporting his existence to be severely flawed is no indication of how much thought went into it.
-->
@EtrnlVw
can you repeat the question ?
-->
@Sum1hugme
You didn't have to for it be imaginary.
But how do you know it’s imaginary? That’s the underlying question you’re not answering.
-->
@Tarik
I did already answer that. And I'm not saying that it is only imaginary, just that you can't show it exists outside of your imagination. We know it is at least imaginary, but you can't elevate it past that with any fact, and so it, like a monster under the bed, is merely imaginary.
OK, the results are in and we find:
1. Those that align with Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking
FLRW, Sum1hugme, zedvictor4, Double_R, Bones
2. Those that align with Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye
EtrnlVw, Tarik, Polytheist, 949havoc, RationalMadman
3. Dunno
oromagi, DeadFire27
-->
@EtrnlVw
Does God exist?Yes, no or I don't know?Next, give an explanation for what you believe is sufficient reasoning of your answer. Any explanation that claims simply "there is no evidence God exists" will be dismissed for lack of intelligent thought, in other words that explanation won't be good enough for this topic. Be creative and at least try and come up with an original thought that supports your theory. For this topic, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The indication that God exists is very strong, so there needs to be a clear indication of the contrary.There also needs to be clear explanation for why you believe God exists, to be fair. So if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to give sufficient reasoning. Those who don't know, you're not off the hook...please explain, with all the information available why you believe it's justified to claim you don't know.There's hundreds of people within this forum too, so every single one of you has one of the three options. I don't want just the same 8 people giving their opinion, if you have a brain you should contribute to this topic one way or another. This is a serious topic and one that applies to every single member.
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
-->
@Bones
No, I am actually giving a very serious answer and telling the complete truth. The reason I say "my no is as certain as the no which I give to people asking me whether there are invisible naked men dancing my room right now" is because neither is actually a no, it is a dunno leaning drastically towards a no. By nature of the impossibility of proving negatives, I can never prove that there isn't a God, just like how I cannot prove there aren't invisible naked men dancing in my room right now.
If you cannot prove or give reason to why God cannot not exist then your answer should never be no. You also shouldn't be certain of anything. No one is asking that you prove negatives, but it does give rise to why you claim God does not exist. Do you understand that? how can you be certain of something you cannot prove?
It seems pretty absurd to me
Explain please. That is, without referring to any particular religious source. You claim it's absurd, I have no idea why you say that.
However, times have changed.
Lol, really?
If you go attend a cosmology conferences, there’s a lot of talk about the origin and nature of the universe; there is no talk about what role God might have played in bringing the universe about.
Why would they need to? I don't need to talk about the origins of pizza to talk about pizza....I don't need to talk about Papa John to discuss Papa John's pizza. Unless of course, I wish to debate the origins of that pizza.
It is not an idea that is taken seriously
I'm going to assume you're not this silly?
science tells us something about that external reality, and God does not exist.
You could only wish that were true. Science is the method of study we use to understand the physical universe through a system of observations, it makes no claims about the existence of God. Not only that, but it has no ability to even reach that conclusion. You make sound as if science is a sentient source, as if it contains truth, knowledge and experience of its own lol. Science only reveals what we feed it, it is a method not a person. Science corresponds with our own advancements, it never exceeds that.
that philosophers are in general agreement on.
Do you know what you're talking about?
I do care, if there is an all loving guy out there you best believe I want to know about him, but from what I can tell, no such wishful idea exists.
It's easy to ascertain the universe is a product of intelligence. That's the first step, we do that through indication and correlation (evidence). There's no reason to begin to make any personal claims about that intelligence at this time. It is not a wishful idea, there is no need for that baloney. We are looking at reality to determine reality.
There's a few ways we can get to God, you will have to be a bit more open-minded. Your rigid beliefs and perceptions will be your input and output, you want to move those out of the way because they limit your potential for truth.
No I didn't read the post, I just felt like I wanted express my atheism.
It's usually a good idea to fully read the OP if you want to stay on topic. This was not really a thread to proselytize atheism.
I'll give you a little brain teaser.
Let me remind you what the topic is here son. The universe and the products thereof can be interpreted in one of two ways....either God exists or God does not. Your interpretation fits with your assumptions that inanimate forces can construct a working intelligent universe on their own. You posit that intelligent processes occur without intelligence, ironically all known processes are shown to correlate/originate with intelligence. Productions require a producer, construction requires a constructor, buildings require a builder, manufacturing requires a manufacturer ect ect...
You need to support your assertions and interpretations that these things occur without the former. This is called correlation. We use correlation to determine if God's existence correlates with reality. It does. Intelligent processes are associated with agency, thought and mind.
Theism does not violate the principle of Occam's Razor and actually it fits quite well. If we see a product of intelligence, it is the most simplest deduction that intelligence was involved.
I just want to test how sharp you are
LOL, I'm not on trial you are.
The bible contradictions and shenanigans with certain individuals is just me having fun and trolling.
It is not necessary for this topic, so it would be appreciated if you act mature.
I think my reasoning is pretty good.
You gave no reason as to why God cannot exist. I'm still waiting for your contribution. Lets start with that.
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLDIMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
What exactly is your point, what exactly is your position? what do perfection and imperfection have to do with the topic?
-->
@FLRW
1. Those that align with Albert Einstein and Stephen HawkingFLRW, Sum1hugme, zedvictor4, Double_R, Bones2. Those that align with Jim Bakker and Tammy FayeEtrnlVw, Tarik, Polytheist, 949havoc, RationalMadman3. Dunnooromagi, DeadFire27
If you're gonna make such a comparison, perhaps what we could instead say is that those in line with the average sociopath are in the first group, those that are in line with the average do-gooder are in the second group and those that are in line with the average scientist are actually in the latter group.
Albert Einstein wasn't an atheist, he was a Deist, much like myself. However, I'm not here to flex that.
-->
@EtrnlVw
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLDIMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GODWhat exactly is your point, what exactly is your position? what do perfection and imperfection have to do with the topic?
OBVIOUSLY GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU THINK THIS WORLD IS IMPERFECT IT INDICATES THAT (EITHER) GOD IS IMPERFECT (OR) HUMANS ARE INCAPABLE OF DETECTING THE PERFECTION OF THE WORLD
-->
@Sum1hugme
I never argued that god cannot exist.
Great. So what philosophical position do you hold as to the origins of the universe? next, how do explain your answer?
I invite you to demonstrate one fact that shows the universe had a creator.
Correlation.
Otherwise it's all in your head.
Lol, thanks I appreciate your opinion.
-->
@3RU7AL
OBVIOUSLY GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU THINK THIS WORLD IS IMPERFECT IT INDICATES THAT (EITHER) GOD IS IMPERFECT
Go back and read the OP.
-->
@RationalMadman
Or that those in line with the second group spend 8 years in prison or die from cancer.
-->
@Double_R
That depends on what you are calling God.
A conscious, intelligent Source involved in constructing our universe.
In most cases my answer is no because the God being proposed contradicts logic.
As of yet, nothing has been proposed. I'm more or less looking for your justification that no God could exist. And then exposing whether or not your position is thoroughly justified.
Like a timeless creator of the universe (creation is an action, actions are necessarily a product of time).
Creation directly corresponds with time so there is no contradiction. But the existence of God precedes creation, which precedes our perception of time....which is a measurement of the events within the universe.
Or an all loving, all powerful God who created a place of torment and torture where we all end up if we don’t follow his rules.
This was never proposed. It is not relevant to this particular topic.
No being capable of creating such a place could possibly fit any coherent definition of all loving.
Not relevant to this topic. We simply want to determine whether or not God/Creator could exist.
Once we cast all the contradictions aside, I would say it’s more reasonable to believe God doesn’t exist than to believe he does
Why? what reason would justify that?
but in terms of knowledge my answer would be I don’t know.
Thank you for the answer.
As far as why I believe it’s more reasonable to believe he doesn’t exist, quite simply because that’s the default position
The default position would be to make no determination. To the left and to the right we have God exists or does not exist. And that would be individual interpretation. The question becomes....which interpretation has more association with truth, logic and reality. I'm looking to highlight that for you here by showing you there is no reason that justifies claiming God does not exist.
Nothing exists until it has been shown to exist.
The same is true for both interpretation, being that the neutral position is making no determination at all. We have the middle grounds which makes no claim, then we have two options on either side. Only one of those options fits with reality.
If your child asks you if the tooth ferry is real and you answer them honestly, I’m willing to bet your answer is “no” despite having no evidence to support that assertion.
There is strong indication that God exists, the two proposals are not compatible. Correlating absurdities with the interpretation that the products of the universe are associated with intelligence is not an absurdity. No one expects you to accept an absurdity.
As far as how I deal with the arguments presented by theists supporting his existence my position is that they all fail, aka there is no evidence.
Well arguments are just logical thought processes tying the existence of God to reality, they don't really prove anything, they are just there to show reasoning for the proposal. However, both correlation and indication ARE evidence, so you have no real grounds to claim there is no evidence. You may find the evidence is not sufficient if that is your opinion, but it is certainly suggestive.
I find it curious that you write this answer off as a lack of thought, It’s almost as if you don’t understand how the burden of proof works. I don’t need a reason to not believe, I need a reason to believe.
You need a reason to make a claim. So I want you to evaluate your own system of reasoning. Your position is not a default position unless you say you cannot answer. If you cannot answer why would you hold atheist views?
The mere fact that I find every argument I have ever heard supporting his existence to be severely flawed is no indication of how much thought went into it.
What do you think about correlation? correlating the products of the universe with intelligence? is that seriously flawed, how?