Total Posts:331|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God exist? (Y/N) VOTE PEOPLE!!!!!!!

Wayne
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 6:44:04 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I am just wondering what is the general consensus of this particular site.

don't you vote yes or no though, explain more of your view.
To be or not to be... what kind of question is that?
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 6:47:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 6:44:04 PM, Wayne wrote:
I am just wondering what is the general consensus of this particular site.

don't you vote yes or no though, explain more of your view.

if only voting could settle this.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 6:55:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Short version no, long version, at least addressing the most common definition of a capitalized god:

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:26:55 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 6:44:04 PM, Wayne wrote:
explain more of your view.

I know I'm not a moderator, but I'd like to emphasize that sentiment. A forum topic should be discussable, and should not result in a plethora of +1 posts.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:32:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
This question cannot be answer with either a yes or a no, since there is not a single person on earth who can prove this in either direction. Both sides lack, and will always lack, sufficient evidence.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:37:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:32:53 PM, JBlake wrote:
This question cannot be answer with either a yes or a no, since there is not a single person on earth who can prove this in either direction. Both sides lack, and will always lack, sufficient evidence.

Jblake do you believe in the easter bunny???
but there is no evidence to disprove him. There is a difference between belief and knowledge and a difference between strong and weak atheism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:40:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:32:53 PM, JBlake wrote:
This question cannot be answer with either a yes or a no, since there is not a single person on earth who can prove this in either direction. Both sides lack, and will always lack, sufficient evidence.

Please take a looksy 4 posts above ya.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 7:45:25 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Whether or not God exists is not something we can hope to derive logically, the topic is far beyond the scope of possible human knowledge.

That's why I'm hard Agnostic.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:02:42 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 7:45:25 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Whether or not God exists is not something we can hope to derive logically, the topic is far beyond the scope of possible human knowledge.

That's why I'm hard Agnostic.

Presumably then you are also agnostic about supernatural pink unicorns and tear gass farting dragons? The fact is that agnosticism doesn't address the same epistemological issue as atheism and theism. People often like to create a scale:
Theism ---- Agnosticism ---- Atheism. But this scale is in fact a nonsequitor. Agnosticism addresses whether or not one knows there is a god. The truth is that everyone is agnostic so saying so is unnecessary. The appropriate question is; do you believe there is a god? If you try and avoid this question by saying you do not know then you are truly saying that you do not believe, which is WEAK or passive atheism. Strong atheism is actively believing there is no god. The scale above should actually read:
Theism ----- Weak Atheism ----- Strong Atheism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:05:50 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
No one took a looksy where I told them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 8:11:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
what i am basically getting at and im sure both of you know this already but belief in god requires active belief. Belief that there is no god requires active belief. However not believing in god is nuetral state in that is doesn't require any active motion in either direction. This is why anything that cannot believe is a weak atheist by default.
Kierkegaard
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 9:43:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
It's impossible to be a "hard agnostic".

Agnosticism is:

"Do you believe that there is a God, or that there isn't?"

"Uh...I dunno."

There's really no way to be hard about it.
Labrat228
Posts: 330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 10:13:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Lets use logic above all else. If I'm right and your wrong, your going to hell. If I'm wrong and your right, nothing bad happens to me. So in the end, for Christians is a win/win situation. But for Atheists its a win/lose situation. Wouldn't it make more since to go with the other 90% of the world and support a god? Or is the 90% mass delusional?
VOTE INNOMEN

How much pot does Charlie Sheen do?
Enough to kill Two and a Half Men!
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 10:13:47 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
Lets use logic above all else. If I'm right and your wrong, your going to hell. If I'm wrong and your right, nothing bad happens to me. So in the end, for Christians is a win/win situation. But for Atheists its a win/lose situation. Wouldn't it make more since to go with the other 90% of the world and support a god? Or is the 90% mass delusional?

Why do people still use Pascal's wager?! Seriously, it's a dead end argument. (cue my cronies)

But yes, the 90% is delusional. (ensue 50+ page topic)
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 10:48:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 10:34:32 PM, Labrat228 wrote:
An argument that you cant refute?

Pascal's wager is an appeal to fear/consequences. It is not an actual argument. It does not even touch the question of whether god exists or not, it simply tells us to be frightened into believing. Sorry, that's not my style. I prefer to believe things based on whether I find them believable, not based on some sense of fear I'm supposed to have for something that some group of people claim exists.
Wayne
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 10:57:49 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
the richard dawkins style response for the pascal wager is that there are innumerable number of gods that one could believe in, the chance that the one you pick is indeed the right one is too small to take into consideration.

adding on to this, logically speaking, it would make more sense that if god exists, he would value how you behave on earth more than whether you had "faith" or not
To be or not to be... what kind of question is that?
Wayne
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 12:59:09 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 6:54:10 PM, Zerosmelt wrote:
oh nice avatar BTW, harris is the effin man!

yes, i lav him!!! smart, eloquent, articulate, sexy ;D
To be or not to be... what kind of question is that?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 8:17:21 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/6/2008 9:43:06 PM, Kierkegaard wrote:
It's impossible to be a "hard agnostic".

Agnosticism is:

"Do you believe that there is a God, or that there isn't?"

"Uh...I dunno."

There's really no way to be hard about it.
WRONG.
A hard agnostic is someone who responds "Um... I dunno." to ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 10:11:31 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
I hope not. I can imagine an eternity in Heaven with all the pious Christians looking down their noses and talking about me in an infuriatingly superior fashion...

"Oh, look, there he is - Brian "Johnny-Come-Lately" Eggleston. Only got in on a wildcard. The only church he ever went in was that one in Aberdeen they converted into a pub. (1) By the way, I heard that when he was a boy he used to bunk off Sunday School and spend the collection money his mum gave him down the amusement arcades."

"Shocking, they should never have allowed him in, especially not after what he said about Jesus on the Internet." (2)

(1) http://www.pbdevco.com...
(2) http://www.debate.org...
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 3:33:21 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
First, Pascale's wager (Not Pascal) is sort of valid. Yes, there are innumerable gods to believe in but, only God is guaranteed to uphold his end of the deal. To use a quick example, Hinduism: In Hinduism, if you don't believe in their God/gods (it's a complicated religion) you don't get eternity in Hell, you just get demoted to a rabbit, and if you're a good rabbit, you get promoted again. Islam believes in the same God, and pretty much every Pagan religion has an imperfect God. This really weakens the wager, but God still wins. Also, if a deity is the same as God, but simply called a different name and worshiped differently, you can still Pascale your way into the smart choice, that is, blend in order to best appease them without getting damned to an eternity of misery.

Although, the Wager does not prove the existence of God. My logic is the cosmological proof, that is the following:
1. Every object has a beginning of its existence (inductive reasoning let's me accept it as a postulate, just like I accept the postulate that a plane can be drawn between any three points)
2. The universe must have had a beginning. (Follows from premise 1)
3. The thing that creates the universe has a beginning. (Also follows from premise 1)
4. This leads to an infinite regress, or a being capable of self-creation. (The creator of the creator has to be created, and so forth, or one creator created itself)
5. Both are illogical. (Infinite regress seems to contradict premise 1, and self-creation means performing an action before one exists)
6. Only a being capable of operating outside of logic and doing the impossible can solve this. (Because it could self-create, maybe even allow for an infinite regress[?])
7. This requires immense power. (Try doing the impossible).
8. That leads to the necessary existence of a deity. (A deity is a immensely powerful supernatural being, doing the impossible operates outside the rules of nature, and breaking logic requires power, [see premise 7].)

Although this does not necessarily lead to the Judeo-Christian God, it leads to a deity, and I ought to pick the most rational. I do this by sorting through attributes. Most polytheistic deities are too weak or way too weird, take the Norse, they believed that the world was created when melting ice made a cow and a snow giant, which beyond being insane, also relies on a previous world.
Wayne
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 3:49:50 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
ermm i would say the universe doesnt necessary need to be "created" by something, you can just say the universe was always there... that isn't a completely satisfactory answer, but your solution to the question is even worse in my opinion. You are basically saying "omigosh, i cant think of any other logical explanation, therefore, something incredible did it!! that is GOD!!"

lastly, you said that some religions are "too weird" compared to Christianity. i reject that claim, i think Christianity is pretty insane... god gave birth to a human and died on earth to save our sin? *dies laughing*
To be or not to be... what kind of question is that?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2008 3:57:59 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm definetly pro - God

The way I look at it we have absolutely no evidence to disprove the existance of God. In fact I have rather good logic to support the existence iof God provided that the universe is finite in the dimension of time.

We can't prove that the dimension of time is finite or infinite. My experiences have lead me to believe it is finite.

Also R_R your argument doesn't prove the inexistence of God, simply the omnipotence of God.

Also it only disproves the definition of omnipotence based on your definition of omnipotence. Christians believe God has the power to do everything he has willed to do.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.