Does God exist?

[bald jo]

read the christian bible preferably catholic it will have all your answers

This post has been infracted.

 

[UniversalHacks]

^ If you honestly believe that I feel sorry for you.


Anyway I believe it is impossible to know, however religion is stupid, every single last one of them.

#Agnostic ftw

 

[Divine_God]

^ If you honestly believe that I feel sorry for you.


Anyway I believe it is impossible to know, however religion is stupid, every single last one of them.

#Agnostic ftw

Why feel sorry for him?

Reading the bible, if anything, will help you dismiss the retardation of Catholicism.

"Christopher Hitchens: Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene," and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."

P.S: The jews settled in the only place of the middle east without oil, LMFAO.

 

[UniversalHacks]

^Read his post, he says the Christian bible has all the answers, which is why I feel sorry for him. I would never push away the idea of reading the bible, or any other holy book. You should before you decide what to believe in.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

I wasn't talking about the christian "god" either.

Did I say Christian God?

It'd be the only real argument in the thread. This topic simply can't be debated objectively since there is no evidence at all. Maybe it'd be better off in another section? I thought this forum was about debate.

There's no evidence for God.

But until you can prove otherwise, it still remains a possibility, which is the point.

Erm. Yeah...

Please think before you speak. I'm not saying a god exists at all. I'm just saying as a scientist that I simply can't dismiss something as proven false when nothing has been proven.


tl;dr, reread my fucking posts.

False? I said improbable. It either exist or it doesnt. There's no evidence, meaning the existence of God is equal to the existence of the boogeyman.

I did. And you said it again. "But you still can't prove otherwise..."

 

[Possibilities]

I voted no, and my reasoning is simply lack of hard, written in stone, evidence. I've seen nothing that can convince me of a god, and anyone saying they believe because, "he created a planet, the only planet, that can support human life", is wrong, due to recent scientific discoveries that were, for thousands of years - billions, even, unknown to us, due to the technology not being well enough advanced. We've discovered at least THREE other planets that are either earth-like, or superior to our current living conditions. However, my primary argument is lack of concrete evidence supporting a creator. "Believe it when you see it" never meant more to me than it does in arguments such as these.

 

[mage3158]

There's no evidence for God.

There's no evidence PERIOD, for the creation of the universe.

All we know is that it happened, we have absolutely no leads as to HOW.

Did I say Christian God?

Any religion, argue semantics on your own time.

Erm. Yeah...

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, it's completely true. There's no factual evidence for any of the hypotheses for the creation of the universe.

False? I said improbable.

Please, tell me what IS probable then? Crazy random happenstance? It's ALL improbable until we can get more real data.

It either exist or it doesnt. There's no evidence, meaning the existence of God is equal to the existence of the boogeyman.

You're an incredibly thick person, who simply can't grasp the concept. If there was theory that included any real evidence I'd agree with you. But this is beyond that, anything on this subject is pure speculation and flights of fancy. Shots in the dark you will.

Until we can pull something more substantial this argument is pointless.

"But you still can't prove otherwise..."

You can't prove anything.

 

[Sandusk]

I null'd my vote because I'm the type of person that doesn't believe something without visual proof.. I'm stubborn I guess you could say.

 

ive never found a reason to believe in a magic baby created by a "virgin"the whole god/jesus shit has pretty much caused all or most of the worlds wars.

 

[gtdarkpunisher]

You can't prove anything.

Again. Not proving doesn't mean anything. Its like saying there a 20 ft monkey at Big Bear. You would tell me its bs. I would say you can't prove anything therefore its acceptable as probable regardless how improbable it is.

Its simply evidence and no evidence. There is none to show for its existence. So it is a statement that it does not exist, until evidence is shown. You cannot disprove something with no evidence as there is nothing to disprove if there is complete lack of evidence. Its simply nonexistent. If you BELIEVE in it thats another thing that cant be disputed on logical grounds as you have been phrasing it.

Not saying you are for, support, or believe in a God, simply your still defending the existence as a religious man would. Which is not based on logic.

Hence why I keep on it when you say "You cannot prove anything.." and the other variations of this same phrase is exactly why I put that image of "Religion Logic". Its simply created on no sold base, instead we have a base the can be conveniently molded into many forms of "logic" thanks to God being beyond from understanding.

There's no need for theories to disprove anything that has yet to form evidence of any sort of form. Its like saying disprove leprechauns, just because I cannot do so with "evidence" doesn't mean they exist. Otherwise it would be lazy way to argue for something, theres no need to make an effort to prove it all that would be said is disprove it.

The idea of God is no more than an idea formed through people's consciousness and misunderstandings. The best that can be done is the proof that its literally a physiological thing, we created God as we believe perfection is. Its simply a created universal hope base completely on FAITH. We create our own demons and angels. Humans have needed that belief to have higher hope in a having a higher purpose.

PS Anyone else see the newest form of a religious war that has started?

 

[mage3158]

You are the most thick headed person I have ever met gtdark.

Again. Not proving doesn't mean anything.

Which is why the discussion is pointless, since NEITHER SIDE HAS EVIDENCE. Do research, come to a conclusion, then debate.

Its like saying there a 20 ft monkey at Big Bear. You would tell me its bs. I would say you can't prove anything therefore its acceptable as probable regardless how improbable it is.

Difference is there is no "probable" idea or theory put out, everything is wild speculation on this topic.

Its simply evidence and no evidence. There is none to show for its existence. So it is a statement that it does not exist, until evidence is shown.

That's not how it works, it would be considered inconclusive especially given the circumstances. Both sides make claims, the burden of proof belongs to both.

You cannot disprove something with no evidence as there is nothing to disprove if there is complete lack of evidence. Its simply nonexistent.

It is merely an idea, a possibility. Of course you can't disprove it when there is no evidence at all.

Problem is you're comparing this to silly thought experiments where science is more understood, such as The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan. I am not giving you a harsh amount of parameters, I am simply giving an idea that may be challenged in the future when more evidence comes to light. For now it's unimportant, but in the future it could become very relevant.

Not saying you are for, support, or believe in a God, simply your still defending the existence as a religious man would. Which is not based on logic.

I'm simply defending the idea, since it is not yet testable by our current technology. It may be some day, so your reasoning seems to be anything but logical.

Its simply created on no sold base

You have to consider the fact that this question is way beyond our tech to prove, disprove etc... Meaning that any hypothesis within this realm is created on no solid base, and is, how did you put it "illogical". These debates are fruitless to say the least.

There's no need for theories to disprove anything that has yet to form evidence of any sort of form.

There are already plenty of other theories concerning the same thing, using more science terms obviously but still the same reliability. Of course since they've got nothing to do with a higher power you people have nothing to say about those despite how they're wild guesses like anything else.

You have to remember that humans love to think of "what ifs", it's really quite useful in moving forward and looking for key things to prove or disprove a specific hypothesis put forth, despite how "illogical" you think it is.

Its like saying disprove leprechauns, just because I cannot do so with "evidence" doesn't mean they exist. Otherwise it would be lazy way to argue for something, theres no need to make an effort to prove it all that would be said is disprove it.

Except what would leprechauns be used in an attempt to explain anything? Doesn't make sense from the get go.

The idea of God is no more than an idea formed through people's consciousness and misunderstandings.

As are a lot of hypotheses.

The best that can be done is the proof that its literally a physiological thing, we created God as we believe perfection is.

I have no idea what you're getting at, it seems like we're trying to discuss different things.

Its simply a created universal hope base completely on FAITH

A lot of people do look at it that way, doesn't mean we can't look at the possibilities scientifically, keep it in mind when we're looking for evidence.

. We create our own demons and angels. Humans have needed that belief to have higher hope in a having a higher purpose.

Irrelevant.

 

[Possibilities]

There's really no use for a debate like this. The belief in a god is simply that - a system of faith. Faith rides on no evidence, but a thought embedded in someone's head. I can't wait for everyone to finally come to terms with the fact there is no proving nor disproving the existence of [a] god.

 

[Noam]

You are the most thick headed person I have ever met gtdark.

The single most fabulous way to begin an argument is with argumentum ad hominem. It emphasizes your vast logical and rhetorical skills.

Which is why the discussion is pointless, since NEITHER SIDE HAS EVIDENCE. Do research, come to a conclusion, then debate.

Nope, that's not how it works. The Burden of Proof This Too is on the statement that God Exists.
Take for example the two statements:
There are no blue pebbles in this pond
There is a blue pebble in this pond
The burden of proof clearly rests on proving something does exist, rather than showing it does not.

Difference is there is no "probable" idea or theory put out, everything is wild speculation on this topic.

That's not how it works, it would be considered inconclusive especially given the circumstances. Both sides make claims, the burden of proof belongs to both.

That's a logical fallacy - Both sides make claims, but one side makes them using math. Math is a valid logical system for proving a claim. In fact, math is stricter than formal logic. Proving something mathematically is the single most solid proof you can get of it's existence.

It is merely an idea, a possibility. Of course you can't disprove it when there is no evidence at all.

Again, burden of proof. You don't seem to understand what the damn thing means. If there is no evidence that it does exists, he needs to provide no evidence that it doesn't. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Problem is you're comparing this to silly thought experiments where science is more understood, such as The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan. I am not giving you a harsh amount of parameters, I am simply giving an idea that may be challenged in the future when more evidence comes to light. For now it's unimportant, but in the future it could become very relevant.

These silly thought experiments are indeed extremely silly. They use no math. The reason people come out doubting all these scientific theorems is that they can't follow the logical connection they are based on, which I'll understand given that the Newtonian model for terminal velocity requires a first order differential equation (V(t)' = -bV(t) + g)
If someone were to challenge the current model of physics at some point in the future, it would likely be with another improved mathematical method, and most certainly not with god and not with silly thought experiments designed to make physics accessible to laymen.

I'm simply defending the idea, since it is not yet testable by our current technology. It may be some day, so your reasoning seems to be anything but logical.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

You have to consider the fact that this question is way beyond our tech to prove, disprove etc... Meaning that any hypothesis within this realm is created on no solid base, and is, how did you put it "illogical". These debates are fruitless to say the least.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
Mathematical Formulations of Quantum Mechanics

There are already plenty of other theories concerning the same thing, using more science terms obviously but still the same reliability. Of course since they've got nothing to do with a higher power you people have nothing to say about those despite how they're wild guesses like anything else.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
Mathematical Formulations of Quantum Mechanics
Math is not a wild guess. It just isn't. Any time I can make a valid mathematical connection between a theory and reality, I have proved the theory.
God, however, has no mathematical description. Show me a function that accurately describes creation, and does it better than http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0202008v1.pdf

A lot of people do look at it that way, doesn't mean we can't look at the possibilities scientifically, keep it in mind when we're looking for evidence.

Babel Fish Entertaining, but I think you'll get the deeper meaning

 

[mage3158]

The single most fabulous way to begin an argument is with argumentum ad hominem. It emphasizes your vast logical and rhetorical skills.

u too babe

Nope, that's not how it works. The Burden of Proof This Too is on the statement that God Exists.
Take for example the two statements:
There are no blue pebbles in this pond
There is a blue pebble in this pond
The burden of proof clearly rests on proving something does exist, rather than showing it does not.

I admit my mistake with burden of proof.

That's a logical fallacy - Both sides make claims, but one side makes them using math. Math is a valid logical system for proving a claim. In fact, math is stricter than formal logic. Proving something mathematically is the single most solid proof you can get of it's existence.

Except there is nothing on either side, math can't be used for parameters that don't exist yet you know. More information is required.

By the way to avoid confusion I'm talking about outside the bounds of our universe/creation of our universe. There are no parameters for those two things (yet) so the argument can not be made. On either side.

I just don't conform to the ideology of something not existing because the hypothesis can't be proven yet. That is too absolute for my tastes, I prefer unconfirmed.

These silly thought experiments are indeed extremely silly. They use no math. The reason people come out doubting all these scientific theorems is that they can't follow the logical connection they are based on, which I'll understand given that the Newtonian model for terminal velocity requires a first order differential equation (V(t)' = -bV(t) + g)
If someone were to challenge the current model of physics at some point in the future, it would likely be with another improved mathematical method, and most certainly not with god and not with silly thought experiments designed to make physics accessible to laymen.

Except I'm not arguing against physics or any known parameters, I'm arguing for theoretical ideas of unknown parameters, which plenty of people are doing really, including scientists.

There is no basis yet.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
Mathematical Formulations of Quantum Mechanics

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

Nice you can link a wikipedia pages. Multiple times.

Mathematical Formulations of Quantum Mechanics
Math is not a wild guess. It just isn't. Any time I can make a valid mathematical connection between a theory and reality, I have proved the theory.

There is no mathematical equation for the parameters given.

And by the way, no it doesn't mean you proved the theory.

God, however, has no mathematical description. Show me a function that accurately describes creation, and does it better than http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0202008v1.pdf

Why do you think the big bang was the beginning of the universe?

 

[malakadang]

There's no evidence PERIOD, for the creation of the universe.

That's because the universe was not created.

The universe is the totality of all existence. The creation of anything can only come about via two means: through something, or through nothing. If the universe was created by something, then that is an obvious contradiction because if something existed to do the creating, then by definition the universe had already existed. If however the opposite is true, and nothing created the universe, then it demonstrates that the universe was not created.

All we know is that it happened, we have absolutely no leads as to HOW.

Ah, but we don't know that the universe was created. All we know is that the universe exists. People just can't wrap their head around the sentiment that existence was not created.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this, it's completely true. There's no factual evidence for any of the hypotheses for the creation of the universe.

Above.


In any event, the reason why this is a discussion worthy of debate is quite simply because billions of people believe in the existence of God, and billions of people have had their lives directly affected by their belief, or the belief of others. You are also right that BOTH SIDES have NO EVIDENCE, but this is to be expected, as things that do not exist do not leave evidence of their non-existence other than the very fact that there is an absence of evidence, and evidence of absence about their existence.

 

[mage3158]

That's because the universe was not created.

Big claim, I assume you can back it up?

The universe is the totality of all existence.

Within the universe, what about multiverse theory?

The creation of anything can only come about via two means: through something, or through nothing. If the universe was created by something, then that is an obvious contradiction because if something existed to do the creating, then by definition the universe had already existed. If however the opposite is true, and nothing created the universe, then it demonstrates that the universe was not created.

Or through a parameter not yet known.

Ah, but we don't know that the universe was created. All we know is that the universe exists. People just can't wrap their head around the sentiment that existence was not created.

True we only know that the universe exists. And again, saying something isn't created is a big claim, we need more information into the subject since our vantage point doesn't really lead to the best data on this subject.

It is in reality a big guess at this point.

In any event, the reason why this is a discussion worthy of debate is quite simply because billions of people believe in the existence of God, and billions of people have had their lives directly affected by their belief, or the belief of others.

Discussion worthy? Sure. Debate worthy? It depends on what you're talking about. In my opinion debating the existence of a god is completely pointless as there is no way to objectively debate.
This topic seems rather suited for General Discussion.

You are also right that BOTH SIDES have NO EVIDENCE, but this is to be expected, as things that do not exist do not leave evidence of their non-existence

So you are saying this: It is impossible for it to be something that can't be detectable by our current tech, and must not exist as fact.

 

[malakadang]

Big claim, I assume you can back it up?

I'm convinced by my position.

Within the universe, what about multiverse theory?

Does the multiverse exist? If the answer is yes, then how can it exist outside the totality of all existence?

I am defining the universe as the totality of all existence, so if it exists, then it exists in the universe that I am describing. Also, the multiverse theory isn't exactly all that spectacular in terms of evidence, logical feasibility, etc.

Or through a parameter not yet known.

Incorrect. Law of the excluded middle. A or non-A. There is no alternative. Existence, or non-existence.

True we only know that the universe exists. And again, saying something isn't created is a big claim, we need more information into the subject since our vantage point doesn't really lead to the best data on this subject.

It is in reality a big guess at this point.

Empirically, perhaps, but logically I don't think it's that difficult a question. You seem to presuppose that something created existence by asking the question 'what created existence'. I ask you, if something created existence, then didn't existence already exist?

Discussion worthy? Sure. Debate worthy? It depends on what you're talking about. In my opinion debating the existence of a god is completely pointless as there is no way to objectively debate.
This topic seems rather suited for General Discussion.

You can debate this topic objectively by pointing out the fallacies in the opposition. I agree that normally debates along the lines of whether pink elephants exists, or magic zebras are pointless. This gets special consideration by virtue of its discussion worthiness for many millenia.

So you are saying this: It is impossible for it to be something that can't be detectable by our current tech, and must not exist as fact.

No. I'm saying that things that do not exist don't leave evidence of their non-existence. For example, think of a cancer in your body. If you don't have cancer, then there is NO EVIDENCE of the non-existence of your cancer. Conversely, there is evidence of absence, you can scout your whole body for evidence of the cancer, but you will never find it since it doesn't exist, and therefore does not leave evidence of its non-existence. You can never however conclude with full logical certainty that therefore you don't have cancer, because you can recognize its logical possibility, brining it back to this debate, depending on ones definition of God (whether the notion of God contradicts itself), one can say God doesn't exist with full logical certainty.

In any event. My point is simple. If something doesn't exist, then there is no evidence that there doesn't exist, so if you recognize that, saying that the atheist side has no evidence of the non-existence of God should be a truism.

 

No. I'm saying that things that do not exist don't leave evidence of their non-existence. For example, think of a cancer in your body. If you don't have cancer, then there is NO EVIDENCE of the non-existence of your cancer. Conversely, there is evidence of absence, you can scout your whole body for evidence of the cancer, but you will never find it since it doesn't exist, and therefore does not leave evidence of its non-existence. You can never however conclude with full logical certainty that therefore you don't have cancer, because you can recognize its logical possibility, brining it back to this debate, depending on ones definition of God (whether the notion of God contradicts itself), one can say God doesn't exist with full logical certainty.

In any event. My point is simple. If something doesn't exist, then there is no evidence that there doesn't exist, so if you recognize that, saying that the atheist side has no evidence of the non-existence of God should be a truism.

That theory works, but it's not a good theory.
I could say I have a magic flying pig. You can not prove me wrong in your position so therefore you must assume I have one.
That's basically what religious people do.

 

[malakadang]

That theory works, but it's not a good theory.

What do you mean?

I could say I have a magic flying pig. You can not prove me wrong in your position so therefore you must assume I have one.
That's basically what religious people do.

Yea, it's a really annoying argument from ignorance.

 

What do you mean?

The theory works, but it couldn't be used to convince me of anything.