Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-01-2017, 11:35 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(13-01-2017 07:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No for the lack of belief crowd, its a lack of belief in God existing and not existing. Its a lack of an affirmative position one way of the other.
So??

One is not obligated to take ANY position for which there is no evidence.

You appear not to understand that the logical default position in the absence of evidence is that there is no basis for belief, therefore you don't afford belief to it.

Invisible deities are inherently non-falsifiable and so you can neither prove nor disprove them. Therefore you should not take a knowledge position.

That said, the probability of such a deity existing is so vanishingly low that there's no good reason to afford belief to it either.

You are actually reflecting the typical theist aversion to uncertainty, the impulse to avoid uncertainty or lack of knowledge at all costs. To make up stuff if need be. The inability to sit with uncertainty.

I am perfectly fine with taking no position on a thing for which there is no evidence until such time as there is. I don't have to have a positive belief position -- and certainly not a positive knowledge position -- on anything.

That said, I have a positive belief position on a whole range of things. Just because I don't afford belief to gods doesn't mean I "don't believe in anything" or "have no hope" or "my life is meaningless". You seem to be trying to avoid this imagined problem by insisting that if I am to convince you I must provide a positive belief argument in favor of SOMETHING divine or supernatural or eternal. 'Tain't so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
13-01-2017, 12:49 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(13-01-2017 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it does seem to appear that lack of belief atheists, tend to treat believing like knowing. If they can't know, wither or not god exists, if gods existence can't be proven to them without a shadow of a doubt one way or the other, then they'll choose not only to lack knowing one way or the other, but believing as well. [...]

So using this logic, because you can't prove that leprechauns, unicorns or fairies don't exist, you think there might be a very slim possibility they do exist?

Pardon me a moment whilst I recover myself... Rolleyes

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2017, 02:22 PM
Why should a deity exist?
(13-01-2017 12:49 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And it does seem to appear that lack of belief atheists, tend to treat believing like knowing. If they can't know, wither or not god exists, if gods existence can't be proven to them without a shadow of a doubt one way or the other, then they'll choose not only to lack knowing one way or the other, but believing as well. [...]

So using this logic, because you can't prove that leprechauns, unicorns or fairies don't exist, you think there might be a very slim possibility they do exist?

Pardon me a moment whilst I recover myself... Rolleyes

No I strongly believe leprechaun's don't exist, based on a variety of reasons.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(13-01-2017 12:49 PM)SYZ Wrote:  So using this logic, because you can't prove that leprechauns, unicorns or fairies don't exist, you think there might be a very slim possibility they do exist?

Pardon me a moment whilst I recover myself... Rolleyes

Shocking Now there's a topic for discussion!

Do a comparison between the bible and Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Which has more evidence to support it?

Could we prove unicorns, leprechauns and ogres?

We already know trolls exist...

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
13-01-2017, 06:47 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(11-01-2017 10:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 09:27 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Why would we need to provide a conception of a godless universe?

You don't need to provide anything. But it shouldn't be surprising why people are not inclined to believe in a conception of reality that no ones particularly putting on the table, or providing, or defending. If you don't have one to provide then us theists are unlikely to have one to consider believing in.

Quote:Just look around you. Every moment of conscious awareness attests to the fact that reality exists independent of conscious activity. Theism holds that reality does not exist independent of conscious activity.

I don't know of many theists who hold that there is no mind independent reality. That don't believe in a physical world. But no doubt some do, just not a particularly common belief.

Though I do often hear some interesting arguments for this by non-believers, lhttp://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/

Since there is no evidence of any gods, those claims are rejected. The universe must therefore be completely natural. That's it.
You continue to repeat, ad nauseum, your argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Try learning about the evidence for how the universe actually works.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-01-2017, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2017 07:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(12-01-2017 07:08 AM)Cypher44 Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 05:02 PM)julep Wrote:  Your answer does not address the question you raised in the OP or my points about the god concept and belief in it being far from harmless, however.

As for the idea that the God concept has caused suffering.. yes it has.. I agree.. It has been twisted by others in order to solidify their own power and subjugate others. (Crusades) but I personally don't think that if everyone did away with the concept of God, all that would happen is, a new concept would be created which would be used to subjugate others..

Those already exist irrespective of theism, e.g. Communism, extreme nationalism, etc.

Quote:All we can do now.. is look to the future and endeavour to ensure that the idea of God is not misused for power again.. -C

Hahahahahaha - good luck with that.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-01-2017, 11:27 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(13-01-2017 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 07:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are trying to argue that A is False is a separate proposition, instead of a rejection of one.
It is a separate proposition than A is not true, particularly when “A is not true” is a stand in for “lack of belief in A”.

Do not quote mine me, do not change the subject.

You are, by the standards of your own supplied definition, incredulous. I did my best to demonstrate what a dishonest cunt you are, but once again, you fair to get the point. You denied being credulous because you were arguing that your proposition simply not being true was not a legitimate alternative position, and thus being unable to accept it (in effect, accept that your initial proposition was false) for some reason doesn't count vis-à-vis the definition of incredulity. I explained how that was a complete load of bollocks, but you're still a fucking idiot, so we're back to square one. That being you continuing to be this forum's shining example of intellectual dishonesty, and the rest of us face-palming in unison in response.



(13-01-2017 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 07:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  … A is False is simply the rejection of A is True

No it’s not, you can lack a belief in A being true, without holding to A being false.

Example: A: Fatbaldhobbit is married

I can reject, or lack a belief in A being true, without holding to A being false. In fact this is the case, I don’t currently know one way or the other whether Fatbaldhobbit is married or not. If it were a true of false question on an exam, I’d inform the instructor that I can’t answer it, because it indeterminable for me at this time.

Now, it’s true that if a person believes Fatbaldhobbit is single, he would also reject A, i.e lack a belief in A, same way I lack a believe in the earth being flat. But this is not the version of lack of belief we’re talking about here. It’s not between believing God exist (FBH being married) and believing God does not exist (FBH being single). But between God exists, and not believing one way or the other whether he exists or not (Lacking a belief in whether FBH is single or married).


No, you stupid cunt. You fucked up your own analogy.

How this would actually work is that the first proposition is 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married'. Okay, so what burden of proof do we need for this to be considered a fact, to be evidently true? Well, a legal marriage license with a valid and legal marriage certificate would be required. If however those documents were unable to be produced, or were fraudulent, or if we found evidence of a divorce? Well then, the proposition itself that 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Married' is false, because it is not factually or evidently true. He could be married or not, but without sufficient evidence to back up the proposition, you cannot claim it as a 'fact'. Notice however that this is different from 'It Is a Fact That Person A is Currently Unmarried'.

So in your case, you adhere to the proposition 'It Is A Fact God Exists', and since it lacks the evidence required to meet it's burden of proof, the proposition is false. Notice however that this is different from 'It Is A Fact No Gods Exists'. If you are unable to recognize your position is false, and claim the reason why is because you don't find 'It Is A Fact No Gods Exists' to be unconvincing, you are a stupid and dishonest dipshit. Also that deflection doesn't guard you against the label of 'incredulous', it merely tacks 'dumbass' onto it.


(13-01-2017 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 07:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So the problem is that you are such a dishonest little shit that you are trying to hide your lack of support and evidence for A is True behind a swapping of the burden of proof, and you do that by pretending that A is False is a counter proposition (like B is True) instead of treating it for what it is, a rejection of the premise that A is True.
I’m not swapping the burden of proof. A person who lacks belief one way or the other has no burden of proof, and that’s pretty much the position folks like yourself present yourselves as holding, just like I have no burden of proof when it comes to FBH’s marital status. Now if I was arguing he is single, than perhaps I would. But that’s not my position.

This is the point where you have crawled so far up your own asshole in service to your sad bullshit, you've completely missed the original point. Mainly that you didn't at all understand the definition of 'incredulity' and thought it somehow didn't magically apply to you.

But hey, thanks for the Ouroboros impression.


(13-01-2017 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-01-2017 07:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now would you kindly go fuck yourself?
There’s nothing here for you to get your panties in a bunch over. So perhaps you should consider managing your temper a little better.

[Image: 585.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2017, 04:31 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
Quote: Tomato.


No for the lack of belief crowd, its a lack of belief in God existing and not existing. Its a lack of an affirmative position one way of the other.

Depends who you ask. I won't believe unless shown evidence to the contrary.

Many can be one way or another of many. Some one way of this or that. To which I ask "what?"

So we are all quite different.

Do you see what I mean when I accuse you of not wanting to know us?


Believing in nothing here means not believing one way or the other. Sort of like how i lack a belief in whether you're married or not.

What do you mean by the use of the word nothing.?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2017, 04:50 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(14-01-2017 04:31 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
Quote: Tomato.


No for the lack of belief crowd, its a lack of belief in God existing and not existing. Its a lack of an affirmative position one way of the other.

Depends who you ask. I won't believe unless shown evidence to the contrary.

Many can be one way or another of many. Some one way of this or that. To which I ask "what?"

So we are all quite different.

Do you see what I mean when I accuse you of not wanting to know us?


Believing in nothing here means not believing one way or the other. Sort of like how i lack a belief in whether you're married or not.

What do you mean by the use of the word nothing.?

What part of that word salad gives you the impression that even he knows? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-01-2017, 04:54 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
A dark sense of humour perhaps... I'm curious after CW was unable to explain his nutty post and went off on an entirely different course. Blink

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: