Why don't you believe in a possible God?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
@GMK: one argument is indeed more valid than the other. 2000 years ago, had you asked what caused a series of destructive sea waves on Crete you'd be told 'Poseidon'. 600 years ago, had you been a child on Hawaii and asked about the cause of the relentlessly spewing volcano you'd be told Pele.

We now know better.
Yet both Pat Robertson and the Iranian mullahs, when the tsunami swept across the Indian Ocean a decade ago, said it was God avenging the immoral topless Euro-babes on Phuket beach.

No... the 'Goddidit' argument is, in 2016, a mere comfort to those desperately clinging to ancient discredited BS. It is NOT credible as a talking point in any rational discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like coyote's post
18-01-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
Just a few highlights since it is obvious that you did not follow what many of the responses you got were saying...

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so.

As a response to not accepting the claims that have been made this misses the point. It isn't only not being convinced by other human beings. It is a matter of evaluating all the evidence for the claims of specific gods as well as the general claim of a non-specific god.

You also keep insisting that not believing a claim means that you believe that it is not so. That's not true. Not accepting claim X doesn't mean I have to accept claim not-X. I can hold both X and not-X as unproven and not believe either.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of any gods. That does not automatically mean that I believe that no gods exist. I simply have not foudn any reason yet to believe one does.

Quote:No. But just to note, that argument goes both ways. Neither are more valid than either.

Again, not believing X is not the same as believing not-X.

Quote:Dark matter, black holes. Describe these things to a rational man back in the day and you might as well follow up with a tale of the easter bunny.

The man back in the day would be rational to not believe in things for which he had not found evidence. My telling him they exist should be dismissed unless I also show him the evidence leading to the conclusion that they do exist. The fact that something may be true is insufficient to believe that it is true unless and until you have the evidence to support it.

Quote:Many hypotheses that turned out to be true have been made long before proof/evidence was discovered.

Right. Hypotheses are important but they should not be believed until they are investigated and evidence for them is found. To paraphrase what Aristotle said, entertaining an idea and accepting an idea are different things.

Quote:Sure. I'll make one up for ya. God is the single force that created the entire universe. Hence, God is energy.

"God" implies a lot more than energy and we already have a word for energy. If you tell me that energy is your god then I will agree that your god exists. I will just think it is a pretty useless characterization.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
18-01-2016, 08:12 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 05:55 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  I'd say it's probably more the spaghetti monster if anything. But I'm open to the idea that I am the product of Ug's glorious wankings. I am not sure what I said that made you think my belief system is better but that was not the intention. As an agnostic, I do not ask my questions as arguments looking for counter-arguments. I am just an observer trying to help people help me understand in the best way possible where they are coming from.

What you are doing, old son, is making a meal out of a simple thing. It is obviously possible that you were created by Ug, or the flying spaghetti monster. The thing that you have not done is evaluated *probability*. Since I came up with the idea of Ug about 12-15 hours ago (if I recall correctly), what probability would you assign to his existence? The existence of Santa? The Tooth Fairy?

As soon as you start thinking along the lines of "what are the chances that this is made up?" vs "what are the chances that it is actually true?" religion falls apart. So there's no need to entertain it further.
That may seem to apply to some religious doctrines, but doesn't pertain to a singular creative force(God).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 07:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  You couldn't possibly of heard all of them to be able to reject them.
And you know this how? Have you looked at "all" the gods? Are you stating that one has to examine every god concept ever created by humanity in order to make a claim of disbelief?

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  So by that explanation it's not so much that you don't believe in God is that you see no reason to believe in the Gods you've heard of in the way you've heard them?
Every god concept comes down to faith. Despite what has been claimed by clergy, faith is not a virtue.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Furthermore those ideas from highly limited incredibly short lived minds served as a stigma to the concept altogether. But why? History has shown little wisdom in assuming that if a human being can't convince you, then it must not be so. This doesn't strike me as intelligence fleshing itself out, but more so an ego of a bias disguised as deductive reasoning.
This strikes me as typical apologetics. I'm not impressed. IF god existed, that being would be able to communicate it's existence in such a way as to eliminate doubt.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  No. But just to note, that argument goes both ways. Neither are more valid than either.
No, it does not go both ways. No educated person would say "We don't know what causes 'X'... therefore science done it."

(I believe this counts as a strawman fallacy. You are making our arguments for us.)

What most science oriented people would say is "We don't know what causes 'X', however there is probably a natural explanation. Let's study it and find out."

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  It is rational to assume you need proof that a supreme being doesn't exist. It is not rational to make a decision with so limited access.
You are 100% wrong. You do not accept anything without evidence. If you believe everything until it is proven false, you end up believing in contradictions.

You also have to accept Santa Claus, the easter bunny and the voices that schizophrenics hear in their heads. None of these can be "proven" not to exist.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Many hypotheses that turned out to be true have been made long before proof/evidence was discovered.
Nope. See above. Additionally, those hypothesis that have been proven correct were proven by the scientific method. Not religion. Not prayer. Not faith.
Are you seeing the pattern yet?

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Hell, meditating buddhists realized they were waves that rippled through the entire universe the same way a wave does in the ocean. Thousands of years later, we know this to be scientifically accurate.
Cite this please.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  God is the single force that created the entire universe. Hence, God is energy. The evidence is energy. Energy is everything and has always been, and with it, the universe was created. God is omnipotent (because energy is). God is omniscient (because time is an illusion, past present and future exist simultaneously in the blanket of energy according to math). God is omnipresent (because consciousness is energy, and energy is everywhere). And so on and so fourth. So there ya go, a conceptualization convenient for a modern civilization destined for the stars.
Where to begin?

We don't know what created the universe, but energy was involved in the Big Bang. Before that, no one can say.

Energy is not Omniscient because "all knowing" requires consciousness. Energy is not a sentient consciousness.

Energy is not omnipotent. Entropy eventually stops energy.

Consciousness is not energy. Consciousness is a condition resulting from the chemical reactions in our brains. No brain, no consciousness.

Omnipresent? Energy may be everywhere (not sure of this) but consciousness is only internal, within our brains. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

One more thing: I'm an amateur at this. The more experienced folks on this site are going to utterly and completely abuse that definition of god.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  My only issue is once again, you are letting the feeble interpretations and limitations of mankind's philosophies denounce the concept altogether.
These are the same limitations and interpretations that created the god concept. If they are good enough to conceive it, they are good enough to discredit it.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  Somewhere a long the way people lose sight of the fact that 5% of a human brain is by no means necessarily equipped to accept or deny what is currently unknown.
For fucks sake, the brain usage statistic was disproved decades ago.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  However, it is not rational to say "well, why believe in God?" in the same way that it is rational to say "why believe in magic?".
It is EXACTLY the same thing.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  The possibility of magic is of virtually no use as we understand physics and chemistry well enough.
The possibility of god is of virtually no use as we understand physics and chemistry well enough.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  99.99% of matter isn't matter. It's empty space.

You are using the god-of-the-gaps argument. That tact has been debunked for centuries.

(18-01-2016 04:38 AM)GrandMasterK Wrote:  I don't engage in this disbelief in the same way atheists do though, such as this very forum dedicated to not believing something. I find it....peculiar.

I find it peculiar that you would come into a forum, decide what it's about, decide how and why we think, and what we believe. Everyone on this board is different. No one believes exactly the same thing, no one came to their understanding in the same way and to make the assumptions you make is a discredit to everyone involved.
So if there is a natural explanation, and nature was started by GOD then....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 08:18 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 08:14 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So if there is a natural explanation, and nature was started by GOD then....

Evidence for god?

Maybe nature was started by the monkeys that flew out of my ass.



If you're going to believe in make believe, I guarantee we can do better than what has already been done.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
18-01-2016, 08:36 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 08:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 08:14 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So if there is a natural explanation, and nature was started by GOD then....

Evidence for god?

Maybe nature was started by the monkeys that flew out of my ass.



If you're going to believe in make believe, I guarantee we can do better than what has already been done.
Nature and the binding laws there of are evidence of GOD, not in any religious view necessarily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 08:36 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 08:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Evidence for god?

Maybe nature was started by the monkeys that flew out of my ass.



If you're going to believe in make believe, I guarantee we can do better than what has already been done.
Nature and the binding laws there of are evidence of GOD, not in any religious view necessarily.

They are as justifiably evidence of no gods as they are evidence of a "GOD" (and that's being loose about it)

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
18-01-2016, 08:49 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 08:36 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 08:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Evidence for god?

Maybe nature was started by the monkeys that flew out of my ass.


If you're going to believe in make believe, I guarantee we can do better than what has already been done.
Nature and the binding laws there of are evidence of GOD, not in any religious view necessarily.

Or Zeus or pink unicorns or Tiamat or any other thing I want to imagine.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 09:23 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 08:36 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 08:18 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Evidence for god?

Maybe nature was started by the monkeys that flew out of my ass.



If you're going to believe in make believe, I guarantee we can do better than what has already been done.
Nature and the binding laws there of are evidence of GOD, not in any religious view necessarily.

What are " the binding laws"?

Nature is evidence of nature. No explanation for a natural phenomenon has ever required "God". Not one. Not ever.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2016, 09:48 AM
RE: Why don't you believe in a possible God?
(18-01-2016 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 08:36 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Nature and the binding laws there of are evidence of GOD, not in any religious view necessarily.

What are " the binding laws"?

Nature is evidence of nature. No explanation for a natural phenomenon has ever required "God". Not one. Not ever.
If that was the case then we would be able to explain everything within one cohesive testable theory.

Don't think that's happened yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: