The Existence of God

Undeniable. However, I don't see how that relates to what I was talking about.

The same argument could be thrown at you. You would have to demonstrate why there is an "if." Perhaps the invalidation of empirical methods is fact. By stating there is an "if," you too are playing the game of unsupported speculation. All we are doing is shifting the burden of proof onto each other.

THe phrase "reasonably disbelieve." Nonetheless, to equate the belief of God to Santa Clause is a Slippery Slope. They are not the same thing.

Empirical evidence can indeed demonstrate a negative or a "non-existence." Physical, Chemical, Biological etc limitations are simply a few ways to prove the "non-existence" of Santa. Empirical evidence is not limited to only affirm "positives" as it can also contradict them, thus resulting in a "negative." However, I do not agree with the assertion that our own empirical evidence can not refute the existence of God. However, it can be used to disprove the existence of say, Santa.

Regardless equating Santa, leprechauns, or Martians to God is a slippery slope! This too is a fallacy...

I agree that groundless claims have no place in debate, however, what do you say to all those who claim they have experienced god?

Ugh... Not Liar Paradox again...

 

Claiming there is no God is asserting a positive. Saying you don't believe there is a God is not.

Here's the deal - theory of macroevolution = scientifically established theory. Ideology of creationism = religious ideology. Religion is, and should always remain, private affairs.

Teaching Creationism on an equal level as Evolution is similar to teaching our knowledge about pregnancy next to the tale of the stork.



As for these supposed contradictory data, post them. I'm not a scientist nor a biologist, but I can tell you without the shade of doubt that there isn't any empirically confirmed data that directly conflicts with evolution.

"People who don't want their beliefs laughed at, shouldn't have such funny beliefs." - Pat Condell.

You honestly can't expect people to handle you, or your beliefs, in a mature, civilized manner when they contradict all pre-existing scientific knowledge; all in order to be politically correct. Why? Because it's stupid.

"I don't know how this happened, therefore, God did it." Logical fallacy.

Islam and Judaism has an even more solid history than Christianity. In fact, Christianity is just a cheap rip-off of Judaism and the tale of Jesus was plagiarized from the tale of Horus, the ancient, Egyptian sun-god.

An omnipotent entity wouldn't be limited by the rules of logic, laws of physics or the boundaries of reality.

 

Lack of evidence.

 

Funny how you start quoting these people now, yet you won't reply to my quote of what you had said.

 

Well, I honestly got raped in the ass. I don't exactly study these kinds of things. I can't gather resources and debate. I'm only trying to argue the points that I know. Even though I may not have legit proof, there is EXPERIENCE. Nobody can defy someone's personal experience.

(i fail here by the wai)

 

Your post wasn't really worth a reply...

I guessed.

Happy now?

 

Here is what I see for evolution

Evolution= lack of evidence to PROVE it.

Creation= Lack of evidence to Disprove It.

Both sides will never come to an agreement and should stop arguing about it until there is solid proof from one side.

 

There are like 2 sides to it

}If god is real why doesnt he help christians in this life?

}If we learnt everything from the bible couldnt some boring person just make god and jebus up?

Its confusing what to believe

 

You're jumping from "I don't know how everything got here" to "therefore God must have done it". That is the argument from ignorance.

Please don't copy and paste massive blocks of somebody else's work. Also, a source would be great. Thanks.

"If" there is a higher power, was my key point. The burden of proof lies upon you to show that there is one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

It's not a slippery slope argument.

A belief in God and a belief in Santa are both beliefs without evidence. That is why I compare them.

In this situation, empirical evidence cannot refute the existence of a being. It is logically possible that there is a biological mechanism that is capable of working around the limitations that you speak of, or that there are exceptions to the rules.

No, it's not.

I will treat them just as I will treat those who claim to have spoken to dead people, aliens, or trees.

Also, note that if they experienced God during a near death experience, the chemical dimethyltriptamine (DMT) perfectly explains their experience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

Actually, they can. An experience under the influence of powerful hallucinogenic drugs, for example, probably will not be taken very seriously.

Please do a bit of research into the evidence for macroevolution. To get you started, try researching the following:

- Fossil record
- Genetic similarities
- Anatomical similarities

 

Hmmm, I don't believe in any gods that I've ever heard of...
Then again, I think everything is too perfect to just coincidentally fall into place.

No, final answer.

 

shredder i will look up something from my science book about the fossile record and genetic simalarites (i got that text from my book)

 

Who wrote, published, and funded your science book?

 

Agreed, but my point is to all those who claim there is no "higher power," the burden of proof lies upon them to show there is not. You see how we can turn this responsibility onto each other.

My mistake, I was thinking of something else. I meant to say that these are arguments by comparison, which are very weak.

So you will disregard their experiences? Basedupon what premise?

 

Not trying to piss anyone off, but I dont think the thread is called "Reasons why god does/does not exist" I think it is called Do you believe in god. If you do, post yes, and why. Mr cheddarbeem, just because you know god doesn't exist, doesn't mean you should make it sound like a No-no for believers. Though you have swayed me from the Believe side to the unbelieve side, -Not fully over though.-

 

Stating categorically "there is no higher power" is a statement that invokes the burden of proof - correct. However, I do not have a positive belief that there is no God, I simply disbelieve in God. The lack of a belief in God is the same as a lack of belief in anything that has not been proven to be true.

Actually, for this exercise, the comparison is an excellent one. Both Santa Claus and God are entities that do not have direct empirical evidence that supports their existence, and they are slightly eyebrow-raising to the physicist. If Santa Claus is not to your taste, then we can use alternatives, such as the house-elves of the Icelanders, the leprechauns of the Irish, the gods of the Greeks, or anything else.

The world would be a sorry place if people believed every man who claimed to have visions. Even so, I will not disregard their experiences, I will take them into account, though with "a grain of salt".

This is the debate forum. We use it for debating, - this thread is a classic example.

 

Agreed. Additionally, the word "believe" conceeds the fact that you too are taking some sort of inductive "leap of faith."

Santa Claus, leprechauns, and house-elves have direct empirical evidence which disprove their existence. Furthermore the context of their origins are different than the origins of God(s). They have different characteristics and limitations than God. Therefore I believe the comparison is weak and faulty.

If you will take them into account, then what do you think of the ones who believe in God based upon these experiences/visions they've had. Earlier you said that anyone who believes in God without reason have place in debate. But what about those who do have a reason to believe based upon their experiences/visions?

 

Right, so I lack belief rather than believe.

I don't know if you understand the concept of empirical evidence. Essentially, it is evidence gained through observation that is repeatable and testable. To test if oxygen results from running electricity through water, you test the oxygen content of the water container, make sure that there are no leaks, and run your current. If the oxygen content is higher after the experiment is complete, then your hypothesis is verified. This test should be able to be repeated by dozens of scientists who will all further verify your results.

Now, to prove that a certain entity does not exist in the universe, one would have to examine every part of the universe simultaneously, using every method of examination. Obviously, this we cannot do, but given the lack of evidence concerning these beings, and given humanity's extensive exploration of biological life, it is rational to work under the assumption that they do not exist.

As an example, say that the United States Army is searching for Osama bin Laden within the borders of Afghanistan. Assuming that his existence in another country is not revealed, they cannot find direct evidence proving that he does not currently reside within Afghanistan. All they can do is comb the country again and again, until they reach the point that if he did reside there, he very probably would have been caught.

I find it very interesting, although history is replete with those who have believed something based upon a personal revelation, from Joan of Arc, to those who claim to have met aliens, to those who say that they've seen the future.

That would be the foundational viewpoint, that God is an entity to be experienced rather than inferred. However, empiricism also comes into this. Our experiences are based upon our brain, which is matter, which obeys observable rules, has always obeyed these rules, and presumably will continue to observe them well into the future. Certain chemicals make us feel emotions, certain neural activity will arouse memories, and damage to certain parts of the brain will affect our thoughts and behavior in predictable ways. Given the number of potential flaws with our natural observation equipment, I don't think it's unreasonable to request additional evidence in cases of claimed supernatural occurances.

Now, you might ask "Mightn't all experiences be mistaken?" Everyday experiences that one has are not likely to be mistaken, for if one occasionally has experiences that are hallucinations, he or she will most likely be found out and placed into medical care. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that I had a bowl of cereal this morning for my breakfast - this is a commonplace, unremarkable event. However, if one claims to have had a mystical experience, given that it is a rather rare, remarkable event that implies a violation of the laws of physics (which are very well supported), one must compare the odds: Which is more likely - a violation of the laws of physics, or a hallucination? In all probability, the hallucination is more likely, especially given psychoactive drugs that occur naturally in the body (dimethyltriptamine, for one). Is it possible that their vision was a legitimate supernatural experience? Sure, but until more evidence comes up in their favor, I'm afraid I cannot accept their testimony.

 

How wasn't it worth a reply? because you had nothing to say?

Also guessing if i believe or don't and making statements upon your assumption makes your reply unintellectual.

 

I agree with him....even though i do believe in a god but if there was no mention of any hell or anything then there would be no use for people to believe in god as mostly the only reason they do is to escape the thought of living in such a place after death

 

Yea God is the bomb shizzle!! lol God bless everyone!! +