Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2014, 10:17 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(23-12-2014 07:44 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  ... no one can "know" until they die ...

"Knowing" anything post-mortem would be impossible, but leave that impossibility aside for a moment and consider that even if one could "know" something post-mortem, there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that whatever would be encountered would involve a god. If death isn't "final", that by no means implies "god", all it would signify is that we don't yet have a complete understanding of the life cycle - it has a dimension we haven't yet been able to examine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
23-12-2014, 10:36 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
Agreed. But I think you "know" what I mean, because what this conversation generally means is there an afterlife and a god there waiting for you, as most religions profess? But I understand what you're saying and agree.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
I claim that God doesn't exist in the same way that Godzilla doesn't exist. I could be wrong (anything is possible, if not probable) but I have no reason to think that I am, and every reason to not believe that a giant radioactive kaiju will be stomping all over Tokyo anytime soon.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 02:42 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(23-12-2014 07:44 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I would have to disagree with Free on two accounts.

First, I don't think we can truly be gnostic about this because no one can "know" until they die, given that we have not had an actual god chill with us at the 7-11.

But this is a presupposition that first must demonstrate evidence that there is life after death, otherwise no one could know after they die.

Quote:Second, Free's argument about there needing to be some shred of evidence for us to consider a god's existence doesn't make sense, and I'll use his elephant example. What would be a shred of evidence of the elephant in the room? A huge dump? Some hair? A scent? Would there have to be an actual elephant there? If so, then it's not a dilemma but rather solid proof of the existence, defeating the point.

Since the analogy states that an elephant is in the room, then the only acceptable evidence is, in fact, an elephant in the room.

Quote:If you're looking for any half-assed shred of evidence to give you some doubt about whether a god exists then why wouldn't the thousands of religions be that tiny shred to turn you from gnostic to agnostic?

It's not about doubt, because doubt is the problem. When there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God, it is exactly the same as no evidence for the existence of Peter Pan.

Since Peter Pan is written about in a book just like God is written about in a book, is it reasonable then to merely doubt the existence of Peter Pan, or is more intellectually honest to conclusively state as fact that Peter Pan does not exist?

Just because billions of people believe God exists has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists. Millions of little children believe Santa Claus exists, and there's hundreds of books about him too.

God, Santa Claus, Peter Pan ... what's the difference?

Quote: While we are skeptical about Jesus performing miracles, you still believe he was a historical figure. People wrote of his supernatural ways and while we don't have solid proof of it, the fact that it was written about must give you even the tiniest shred of doubt that he wasn't a god. It's not a lot, but you can't say there is nothing at all. It doesn't pass our scale of solid proof, like the historical proof you approve of, but it's something.

Again, since we have records of the existence of Jesus that do not have embellishments of his life, the only thing we can completely and reasonably conclude about the man- using reasoning and other evidence- is that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Using mere reasoning, we can discount the miracles and other embellishments as folk-lore.

I have confidence in the human ability to progress reason and rationale to reach conclusions that do not defy what is reasonable, acceptable, and plausible.

Quote:Also, there are things we have no idea exist until they are discovered, such as new species, etc. How is that any different from a god? Only in this case, we won't know until we die.

I agree with that, but we cannot presuppose the existence of God without tangible evidence. All we have is a single book. We have no pictures, no witnesses, no video, nothing.

Quote:Believe me when I say I am about as gnostic in my disbelief as you can be, but I just don't buy into true gnosticism about this subject.

Most people are just like you, and there's nothing wrong with that. I am simply calling a spade a spade, because there is not even enough evidence to doubt, let alone believe.

I choose to be gnostic about it because I feel it is more honest.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(24-12-2014 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  It's not about doubt, because doubt is the problem. When there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God, it is exactly the same as no evidence for the existence of Peter Pan.

Since Peter Pan is written about in a book just like God is written about in a book, is it reasonable then to merely doubt the existence of Peter Pan, or is more intellectually honest to conclusively state as fact that Peter Pan does not exist?

Just because billions of people believe God exists has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists. Millions of little children believe Santa Claus exists, and there's hundreds of books about him too.

God, Santa Claus, Peter Pan ... what's the difference?

The difference is that Peter Pan is a fictional character from the get-go, deliberately created as a fictional character. The books of the Bible were presumably written by people who sincerely believed that God existed. That doesn't make them true, of course, but it's still not quite the same thing as Peter Pan (or Harry Potter, another popular example). Millions of intelligent adults believe that God exists. Nobody thinks Peter Pan or Harry Potter is real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(24-12-2014 03:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(24-12-2014 02:42 PM)Free Wrote:  It's not about doubt, because doubt is the problem. When there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God, it is exactly the same as no evidence for the existence of Peter Pan.

Since Peter Pan is written about in a book just like God is written about in a book, is it reasonable then to merely doubt the existence of Peter Pan, or is more intellectually honest to conclusively state as fact that Peter Pan does not exist?

Just because billions of people believe God exists has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists. Millions of little children believe Santa Claus exists, and there's hundreds of books about him too.

God, Santa Claus, Peter Pan ... what's the difference?

The difference is that Peter Pan is a fictional character from the get-go, deliberately created as a fictional character. The books of the Bible were presumably written by people who sincerely believed that God existed. That doesn't make them true, of course, but it's still not quite the same thing as Peter Pan (or Harry Potter, another popular example). Millions of intelligent adults believe that God exists. Nobody thinks Peter Pan or Harry Potter is real.

But you see, you still are arguing from a possible position of "belief." You are arguing that since people believe God exists it somehow has more credence than if Peter Pan existed.

Belief has nothing to do with it. Beliefs demonstrate nothing as far as evidence is concerned. It is no different if 1 person believed, or if 1 billion people believed, because at the end of the day your argument is still based upon beliefs.

Yet, when we critically examine it from an evidence point of view, there is still no more evidence for the existence of God than there is for Peter Pan.

1.8 billion Muslims believe Allah exists because one book, the Qur'an, says he does. In the past millions believed Zeus existed, and millions more believed other gods existed.

Therefore, should we believe or doubt those gods actually exist Or should we positively claim they don't exist?

Perhaps tomorrow a new god and religion will surface, but only have 25 believers. Their god will be something like a 5 headed version of Earmuffs here on the forum, who does nothing but crack people up with jokes.

Will that exist? Should we even have doubt? Some things simply lack any evidence, and are just too ridiculous to even warrant "possible" let alone true.

The god of the bible has demonstrated no evidence to support even a remote possibility of existence, therefore to be agnostic about it just don't seem intellectually honest.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
I would say the fact that millions of intelligent adults believe in God is evidence of a sort. I don't claim that it's good evidence -- it doesn't convince me at all -- but it is something. It is better evidence than we have for Peter Pan. The two situations are not exact equivalents. 0.00001 is not a whole lot bigger than 0, but they are not equal either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 04:04 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(24-12-2014 03:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would say the fact that millions of intelligent adults believe in God is evidence of a sort. I don't claim that it's good evidence -- it doesn't convince me at all -- but it is something. It is better evidence than we have for Peter Pan. The two situations are not exact equivalents. 0.00001 is not a whole lot bigger than 0, but they are not equal either.

All I can say is this:

Today I believe that a 100000 headed god known as OnionBitch created the earth and stars et al. I am the only one who believes it today. Does that make OnionBitch's existence possible? No?

But then, tomorrow, 100000 people will believe it exists all because I said it did and wrote a book about it.

Is it now more possible tomorrow than it is today just because tomorrow there will be more people believing it?

Next week 1.8 billion followers of OnionBitch will bow down in worship.

I guess I am a propeht now with a direct line to OnionBitch.

Smile

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(24-12-2014 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-12-2014 03:54 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would say the fact that millions of intelligent adults believe in God is evidence of a sort. I don't claim that it's good evidence -- it doesn't convince me at all -- but it is something. It is better evidence than we have for Peter Pan. The two situations are not exact equivalents. 0.00001 is not a whole lot bigger than 0, but they are not equal either.

All I can say is this:

Today I believe that a 100000 headed god known as OnionBitch created the earth and stars et al. I am the only one who believes it today. Does that make OnionBitch's existence possible? No?

But then, tomorrow, 100000 people will believe it exists all because I said it did and wrote a book about it.

Is it now more possible tomorrow than it is today just because tomorrow there will be more people believing it?

Next week 1.8 billion followers of OnionBitch will bow down in worship.

I guess I am a propeht now with a direct line to OnionBitch.

Smile

...and none of that has anything to do with the point I was making. Since you don't seem to have the ability to understand what other people are saying to you, I will not bother trying anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Would you claim a god doesn't exist for sure?
(24-12-2014 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(24-12-2014 04:04 PM)Free Wrote:  All I can say is this:

Today I believe that a 100000 headed god known as OnionBitch created the earth and stars et al. I am the only one who believes it today. Does that make OnionBitch's existence possible? No?

But then, tomorrow, 100000 people will believe it exists all because I said it did and wrote a book about it.

Is it now more possible tomorrow than it is today just because tomorrow there will be more people believing it?

Next week 1.8 billion followers of OnionBitch will bow down in worship.

I guess I am a propeht now with a direct line to OnionBitch.

Smile

...and none of that has anything to do with the point I was making. Since you don't seem to have the ability to understand what other people are saying to you, I will not bother trying anymore.

Your point is "anything is possible.'

My point is, "prove it."

It's that simple.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: