|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Panda writes:
On the contrary, you're equivocating "know" with "expect". Unless you await each morning with a sense of trepidation, then you are equivocating with the word 'know' again. I expect the sun to come up tomorrow. I also expect a foolish response to this post but I don't "know" I will get one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
tangle writes:
That's what I'm saying. We don't "know" that that outside possibility doesn't exist.
Personally, I'm entirely happy to rule out any and all the Gods we've so far invented, but leave open, as an outside possibility, the chance that one day a thoroughly disinterested god will be found playing dominos with himself in another dimension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
If we don't find what we're looking for, it might just mean that we don't have the necessary instruments to perceive what we are looking for. The problem here is that someone has claimed to have found something. However, when we really dig deep into the claim, we find that there is absolutely nothing empirically demonstrable about their claim. It is purely an emotional experience. The real question is why even claim to have found something if you don't have the necessary observations to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The real question is why even claim to have found something if you don't have the necessary observations to begin with? Jewish tradition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Taq writes: I might add "something or someone. The real question is why even claim to have found something if you don't have the necessary observations to begin with? Spirituality is a subjective experience based on faith and belief. Some folks wont believe anything without evidence. Others base faith and/or belief on feeling. Let me give an example of my "feelings" The Pastor asked me to speak at church. I have scant experience in public speaking nor did I have anything prepared...moreover I'm usually nervous before such tasks. This time I prayed for Gods comfort. I realize that this is a vague term, and critics could quite correctly assert that prayer had nothing to do with the result. The fact is, however, I went before 100+ people and shared my detention center ministry experience with them...totally unafraid, totally focused on the audience, and at no loss for words. My biased belief says that God helped me. I have no evidence of such a likelihood except to say that my evidence was a combination of my feelings, my experience, and others who commented on how they had never heard me sound quite so together nor my usual shy and immature self.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
tangle writes:
Personally, I'm entirely happy to rule out any and all the Gods we've so far invented, but leave open, as an outside possibility, the chance that one day a thoroughly disinterested god will be found playing dominos with himself in another dimension.ringo writes: And to be quite honest, myself or any other believer attempting to convince you otherwise is employing confirmation bias. From a strictly neutral, lifeless, and emotionless critical scientific approach, you are correct. That's what I'm saying. We don't "know" that that outside possibility doesn't exist. What I for one attempt to share with you skeptics is my subjective experiences. Other than those, I got nothin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Some folks wont believe anything without evidence. I would say that with god claims, it is even worse. Before the advent of modern science, almost everything in nature had a supernatural explanation of one kind or another. People accepted these claims based on faith. These explanations turned out to be spectacularly false. Not just a little bit, but way wrong. Why should we accept faith based arguments when they have failed so badly time and again?
This time I prayed for Gods comfort. I realize that this is a vague term, and critics could quite correctly assert that prayer had nothing to do with the result. The fact is, however, I went before 100+ people and shared my detention center ministry experience with them...totally unafraid, totally focused on the audience, and at no loss for words. My biased belief says that God helped me. If someone claimed that they prayed to Zeus and had the same experience, would you convert to worshipping Zeus? What about Vishnu? I don't think you would. So why should I be convinced by the same argument for a god I don't believe in? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
If someone claimed that they prayed to Zeus and had the same experience, would you convert to worshipping Zeus? What about Vishnu? I don't think you would. So why should I be convinced by the same argument for a god I don't believe in? You dont have to believe in Him. All you have to do is believe in me.. Am I credible? Do you think I am truthful? Is my story plausible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10081 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You dont have to believe in Him. All you have to do is believe in me.. Am I credible? Do you think I am truthful? Is my story plausible? Can truthful people still be wrong? Yes. Are you credible? Absolutely not. Anyone who tries to have conversations with invisible people is not credible. Is your story plausible? As to a deity being involved, absolutely not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raphael Member (Idle past 490 days) Posts: 173 From: Southern California, United States Joined: |
I am super busy studying for final exams, but I thought I'd allow myself to be preoccupied for a bit by this discussion here
After reading through this thread it seems to me that we are once again facing the great debate. We have Stile (and his consistently used 4/5-statement outline ) arguing that he knows God does not exist. We have Eliyahu arguing the opposite. With interjections between and throughout. Both have asserted what they believe to be true. It interests me that we, as humans, get so caught up in this kind of argument. Focusing so much on the rationality, the mathematics, the science, all it turns out to be is one huge insult-filled, exponent citing spaghetti monster. Haha. We are so quick to lose sight of the much bigger issues at hand. My issue lies with both sides.
Stile writes: Whether or not God exists is a matter of reality.Following the evidence is our best known method for determining the state of reality. Your choice if you want to follow the evidence or not.By following the evidence... I know that God does not exist. By following the evidence... I know that God does not exist even more than I know you won't die the next time you post here at EvC. For Stile, God does not exist. His subjective experience has told him so. He claims the collective "we" (meaning humanity I'm assuming?) have been unable to prove God's existence, since he cannot be seen, does not answer prayers, etc. This confuses me since the majority of humanity would affirm the existence of some sort of a supernatural power, and there are many testimonies of supernatural experiences out there (ghost sightings, unexplained phenomenon, answering prayer, miracles, etc). Here are some links: 18% of Americans say they've seen a ghost | Pew Research Center People Said to Believe in Aliens and Ghosts More Than God | Live Science Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism - 404 Not Found This is affirmed by history as well. Moreover, humans in general tend to believe in or at least leave the possibility open to the existence of some sort of supernatural force/forces. (Aliens/God/demons/spirits): So since "we" (as a human race) have (in general) a belief in some sort of supernatural, two things are apparent. 1. Stile is choosing the minority view that the supernatural doesn't exist. 2. It is obvious that Stiles' problem does not actually lie with the supernatural, but with the Judeo/Christian presentation of God. If this were not so he would not have begun his position by attacking (albeit non maliciously) an already established position like "God," and would have wrote "Any sort of supernatural force of any kind" or something of that nature. So my question for Stile would be: "What about the Judeo/Christian God or the people who claim his name do you disagree with?" The churches? The hypocrisy? The assumptions? This is the internet, so one can only get so personal, but I truly believe if this was not a debate, and Judeo-Christianity were not Judeo-Christianity, if it had no name, if the religions did not exist and all you had was an unnamed book on an island somewhere, you would find room in your worldview for clothing the naked, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, and setting the oppressed free. (Luke 4:17) That's Jesus. That's God.
Eliyahu writes: Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe. Eliyahu, on the other hand, claims that God does exist, and that mathematics can prove the existence of said God. He has argued that due to the anthropic principle God can be proven to exist. While this may be true or false, I would argue that trying to prove God's existence with science/mathematics to those who use the same means to disprove God's existence is equally as futile. Here is a prime example: The opposing side has refused to accept your thesis, and so you really have nothing more to give them than reiterating your point. How you do this is up to you, but no matter how many insults you include, appeals for reason you throw out, and references back to your original point you make they will always refute you with the same things. I know Eliyahu is Jewish, so this is my personal perspective and I do not mean this in a disrespectful way (I am a protestant Christian). Jesus was counter-cultural. Meaning, when those challenging him came with intellectual arguments he confused them by not feeding their intellectualism. He simply loved people, and let that be the testimony that God is real. So, in conclusion, the argument is really actually fruitless, for when debating on such an over-debated topic, especially over the internet, no ground can be gained on either side. It is only faith expressing itself in love that will have any merit in the kingdom (Gal. 5:6) and if that's either of you, I'll be seeing you there! Today. Tomorrow. And in eternity The Beatles really were right! Haha. Regards! - Raph
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Raphael writes:
Raphael, I respectfully disagree with that conclusion. So, in conclusion, the argument is really actually fruitless, for when debating on such an over-debated topic, especially over the internet, no ground can be gained on either side. I can present myself as an example where debates such as these played a huge part in changing my mind completely from being a Protestant to becoming non-religious. What we usually see in debates such as these are completely illogical, and dare I say functionally illiterate, religious people such as Eliyahu and Faith on the religious side up against rational and well-educated people on the other side. People who obviously thought long and hard about religion. There are exceptions to the rule, I immediately think of CS and RAZD and some others on this forum. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from them. Sometimes I think that religious people such as them just can’t live on the same planet as those fundamentalists. I don't have any repect for the rest of your conclusions. Just wishful thinking and preaching with absolutely no empirical evidence or merit to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Pressie,to Raphael writes: again, I would argue that although there is no evidence, there definitely is merit. I don't have any respect for the rest of your conclusions. Just wishful thinking and preaching with absolutely no empirical evidence or merit to it. Websters writes:
Full Definition of MERIT 1a obsolete : reward or punishment due b : the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one's deserts c : a praiseworthy quality : virtue d : character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also : achievement 2 : spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous acts and to ensure future benefits 3 a plural : the substance of a legal case apart from matters of jurisdiction, procedure, or form b : individual significance or justification I believe that we all have merit. Raphael brings up the point that unbelief is a minority view globally. Disagreement leads to communication...which is the reason that we endlessly discuss these issues. I actually look forward to engaging in dialogue with some of the names that I see at this forum. And of course we rarely agree---if we did, the whole game would be over. Pressie, while you can present yourself as an example of changing from one extreme to another, there are others who have changed from being non-religious to being a Protestant, for example. I also will agree that many religious people are illogical thinkers...and many non religious people are extremely logical and well read, though again, there are exceptions to this rule. And I disagree with Raphael that argumentativeness is fruitless. The very fact that we here at EvC have dialogue at all is...to me...fruitful. Its not about winning or losing a discussion so much as it is about finding two hundred new ways to say the same thing only better. At least for me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18345 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0
|
Raphael writes: No wonder you have been praying! haha I am super busy studying for final exams, but I thought I'd allow myself to be preoccupied for a bit by this discussion here Tell us what subjects you are being tested for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What we usually see in debates such as these are completely illogical, and dare I say functionally illiterate, religious people such as Eliyahu and Faith on the religious side up against rational and well-educated people on the other side. People who obviously thought long and hard about religion. I thought long and hard for many years before becoming a committed Protestant, before which I was always regarded as quite well educated and particularly as literate. Apparently you can only recognize thinking if it leads to the conclusions you came to. Typical of the EvC mentality of course. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Well, my subjective experiences confirm the neutral, lifeless and emotionless critical approach.
From a strictly neutral, lifeless, and emotionless critical scientific approach, you are correct.What I for one attempt to share with you skeptics is my subjective experiences.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024