You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

MPFGLB

This discussion reminds me of this from Htcher's Guide to the Galaxy

"“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”"

antiskeptic

MPFGLB wrote: »

This discussion reminds me of this from Htcher's Guide to the Galaxy

"“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”"

You should read the OP.

God does prove he exists. The problem might lie in what you suppose God ought to 'look like"

Or whose idea of a proof you are working off. A philosophically derived proof? A legally derived proof (e.g. balance of probabilities), a proof you haven't thought of that exceeds the various proof methods you currently have at your disposal?

There is no particular reason why you get to be the judge of 'sufficient evidence provided'

antiskeptic

Where does it say that subjective involves necessarily error prone?

MPFGLB

antiskeptic wrote: »

You should read the OP.

God does prove he exists. The problem might lie in what you suppose God ought to 'look like"

Or whose idea of a proof you are working off. A philosophically derived proof? A legally derived proof (e.g. balance of probabilities), a proof you haven't thought of that exceeds the various proof methods you currently have at your disposal?

There is no particular reason why you get to be the judge of 'sufficient evidence provided'

what they hell are you on about ?


And I unlike you are not the'judge of anything including "sufficient evidence provided' ..whatever the hell that means..

I just inserted a passage from Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy that has more wisdom and truth in it than all your ramblings


" A philosophically derived proof? A legally derived proof (e.g. balance of probabilities), a proof you haven't thought of that exceeds the various proof methods you currently have at your disposal?" Jasus

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Define the Big Bang (especially the bit about where the singularity came from).

How's your maths?

Attempting to divert.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ridiculous by what measure? And where did the measure obtain its credentials?

Attempting to divert and discredit by asking pointless, go nowhere questions. Bit like Abe Simpon's onion on the belt story, wear you down through persistent nonsense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

M'lud. Conjecture.

Sustained.

Talking to and answering one's self, voices in the head can be a dangerous thing!

antiskeptic wrote: »

Might it be that you don't understand and that they, to a degree exceeding you, do? I understand it to a degree more than you.

By what standard can I say that, you might ask.

Saying that it's too complicated for others to understand after giving a string of evasive and convoluted non-anwsers, just as I'd predicted, religion 101 :-)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who is the supreme authority in your life. If not you?

Straightforward question.

I've been told what it isn't: that the authority is not self. But I haven't yet been told who or what it is.

Definitions are doing the rounds here of late. So a definition of your supreme authrority. Say in less than 20 words.

I reconginze all those words in fairness but I've never seen them arranged in that particular order, just more irrelevant jumbled up poo.

Finally, what do you mean by god? (I know you have zero intention of answering this question, but it is fun to watch you dance around it).

LeinsterDub

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't really matter. Your original position relied on an all powerful God (who could do simply anything). Since that's not my position..

Well it does matter. What happens when your god is confronted with the liars paradox?

LeinsterDub

smacl wrote: »

On my phone so can't link but from memory the omnipotence paradox is such that omnipotence is not logically possible. Making a being more powerful than yourself for example. Christians typically believe their god is omnipotent within the limits of what is logically possible and theologically comfortable.

They are of course free to believe that. What they aren't free to do is redefine the word omnipotent. Like an infinity you can't impose limits on it

nozzferrahhtoo

Midster wrote: »

And without that, more complicated life wouldn’t be hear, like us.

Well, you do not actually know that. That is 100% assumption really. Let me explain.

You are essentially using a lot of words to re-state the "Fine Tuning" argument theists and deists often use. You should check out the anthropic principle in comparison. Which often references the fallacy of survivor bias.

Douglas Adams described the issue well in terms more lay people could understand. He asks you to imagine a puddle of water that becomes sentient. The puddle marvels that the shape of the hole it formed in is PERFECT for it's shape. He marvels that were the hole not exactly the shape it was, he would not have been able to form at all!

His error being in not realising that he grew to fit the hole, not the hole formed to fit him. His assumptions, like yours above, are exactly backwards.

When we look at life on earth and the series of events that caused it, we marvel that OUR life could not have formed as it did had these events not occurred exactly as they did. But that does not mean LIFE could not have. Perhaps if the dinosaurs survived they would have lived to evolve into Sentient Lizard people who would in their own turn be marvelling "had that enormous asteroid not sailed JUST past earth we would not be here! Miraculous!!!".

Like you, and the puddle, they would be making a core error in their thinking that THEIR form of life is THE form of life and conditions must have been EXACTLY perfect to form it.

Midster wrote: »

Does the universe exist for us to see it? Or are we only here so that the universe can exist?

Micheal Nugent put it well that it shows a creator with an odd set of priorities to have created a universe with billions of galaxies, each with billions of systems, each with billions of stars, all to form one planet with 10s of 1000s of forms of life.... just so it could elevate one of them to sentience and admonish it not to collect sticks on the Sabbath.

Atheism then being the completely hubristic and arrogant world view that perhaps ALL of this was not made for our benefit. Man those arrogant atheists, wha?

Midster wrote: »

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

Happy to keep the door open, but nothing is coming in. Few people here preclude the IDEA there might be such an intelligent and intentional agents responsible for our universe. We just realise that the idea is at this time not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

Midster wrote: »

Humans have felt, been in communication with, been in the presence of, in some cases been in the company of some kind god since further back than our history books began. And archeology even further back in time.

The fallacy in play here is "argumentum ad populum" if you need to look it up. Basically the idea that something is more credible, if more people believe it.

Humans have also thought, further back than history books began, that their eyes give them an uninterrupted field of vision. People usually have to explicitly be shown the existence of the "Blind spot". Relevance? Well basically most people, most of the time, are perfectly capable of believing a falsehood.

The question should be "is there any reason to think this is true?" not "How many people have believed it to be true?".

In fact there are very good evolutionary reasons why we as humans might be predisposed to be under the impression there is a god, and even to feel it's presence or that we are in some level of relationship with it.

I can go into these with you if you wish as unlike some you appear to be able to string a sentence together that A) is actually relevant to the people you are replying to and follows established syntax and is therefore meaningful and readable. Two benefits that you may have noticed have been absent on the thread of late.

Midster wrote: »

Why be so dismissive? After all if 99.99999% of those cases were untrue, and wrong, that still leaves at least a small percentage of truth.

Sure but if we think like that what else must we also stop dismissing? After all there is hardly an alternative form of medicine, no matter how wacky, that could not be described exactly the same way. What of alien abductions too? Ghosts? Psychic phenomenon? NDE? And much more.

Basically if you implement the "There is testimony and not 100% of it can be untrue" algorithm there is hardly anything you would therefore have to NOT believe. It is not a safe algorithm on it's own merits.

We are dismissive of claims that are not evidenced. That is all. Throwing random %s around helps not at all. There are SOME claims where it will be 99% but there are others where it is 100%. There will even be things where it is 1% but in fact the claim turns out to be true after all!

Our job is to figure out which is which using substantiation. Not guess work.

smacl

LeinsterDub wrote: »

They are of course free to believe that. What they aren't free to do is redefine the word omnipotent. Like an infinity you can't impose limits on it

In the interests of trying to appear somehow more plausible to us feelthy heathens, Christian god only has Omnipotence Lite (tm). Doesn't seem to be having the desired effect. What with his omniscience, you'd think he might have sussed that. :pac:

Given that the OP refuses to accept that subjective and objective are antonyms and defined as such in every major English dictionary, I suspect we're rather further down the rabbit hole than that at this point. Not even sure that Alice would venture quite this far down. I for one abandoned the tea party once the OP's words no longer followed their well understood and defined meanings.

antiskeptic

MPFGLB wrote: »

what they hell are you on about ?

You post this..

"I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, 

... and I corrected it. S'all

antiskeptic

nozzferraahtoo wrote:

Micheal Nugent put it well that it shows a creator with an odd set of priorities to have created a universe with billions of galaxies, each with billions of systems, each with billions of stars, all to form one planet with 10s of 1000s of forms of life.... just so it could elevate one of them to sentience and admonish it not to collect sticks on the Sabbath.

That argument would work for any quantity in any direction. Twice as many galaxies? Just 1 galaxy? Just earth (with many lifeforms). Just earth with half as many life forms. Heck, if there were only two lifeforms including man, man could say, "why'dya think I'm the special one?."

Its only odd if you have something to calibrate oddness off. Michael probably didn't say what that was. But we already know: whatever Michael thinks is odd.

Let's suppose the purpose of the magnitude of the universe is to make us feel small and insignificant (which seems to have worked to partial extent with yourself). Its not an unusual experience for man to have. The required size, in order to fulfill that function, would have to reflect the size of the problem.

How big it is we think we are? If we think we are very big, then the universe needs to be very big in order to, perhaps, make us feel small.

Its not as if size is difficult for God.

CramCycle

robindch wrote: »

You've hit upon one of the very few innovations which seem to have originated in christianity - the anonymity of the deity.

Previous deities had names and characteristics, but the christian deity developed with neither - a mirror which allowed believers the freedom to see themselves and reflect their beliefs exactly.

It's a neat conceptual leap, in all fairness.

smacl wrote: »

On my phone so can't link but from memory the omnipotence paradox is such that omnipotence is not logically possible. Making a being more powerful than yourself for example. Christians typically believe their god is omnipotent within the limits of what is logically possible and theologically comfortable.

The great example of this is the saint of killers in Preacher (spoilers ahead), whose guns could never jam, never run out of ammo and would kill every target they hit.

At the end of the series, he shot God

Cabaal

In the interest of an accurate subject line for this thread, can the subject line be changed?

It's very misleading after all
"You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters. "

Nobody KNOWS god exists, they can believe a god exists but thats as far as it goes.
Any chance of a mod correcting it?

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody KNOWS god exists, they can believe a god exists but thats as far as it goes.

Do you know this? If so, how? Or is this statement of yours a belief?

nthclare

I don't believe in the God head myself or all seeing all knowing.

Im not going to share my personal views here in my pagan beliefs because its just my thing and im in a shed out of the rain, just after sharpening a chainsaw and have no time to be towing and frowning.

But my question to antiseptic is, why try to convince people that God is real when you could be doing something productive and creative?

If your God's so powerful and the alpha and omega, why debate it on boards?

Having an affinity for the land and ocean and all living things makes more sense to me than believing in a suggested powerful sand demon from a land tipping off an ocean and barren desert of sand goat herders,oryx's, sand cats, fish and olive trees, junipers and oaks, lemons etc

There's nothing there of beauty to suggest that an all powerful entity decided to assimilate himself in the form of a human being to bring a message to man kind.

No i know you can suggest he chose his place of origin because its humble, and from dust we came and to dust we end etc

A great philosophical or spiritual story could convince a lot of people of the reason he or she or it chose Bethlehem.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

In the interest of an accurate subject line for this thread, can the subject line be changed?

It's very misleading after all
"You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters. "

Nobody KNOWS god exists, they can believe a god exists but thats as far as it goes.
Any chance of a mod correcting it?

I had some thoughts myself about a more accurate title for the thread myself here; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111985503&postcount=474 Thankfully it is not the task of us mods to assure the veracity of the content of these threads, nor their titles, once they stay within the charter.

My opening comment on the thread was that it appears very close to soap boxing, and I've yet to see any post that finds merit in the OPs argument, but given people are keen to continue the debate we've left it open.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Philosopy determines definitions. When discussing a particular philosophy (mine) you go with my definitions.

You don't prove philosophies, you decide upon them.

Nope. You do not get to redefine words to suit your argument, philosophical or not. If want to make up a brand new word or, heaven forbid, look up the correct word for what you want to describe, then by all means go ahead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the mean time we get to decide upon our response to truth. If truth is God then..

But we can't see it is truth without god "opening our eyes". Hence any decision made beforehand is not fully informed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God is truth, love, joy, peace, life.. and we have decided our attitude to these things (with our responses to truth telling about the worth of these thungs), then..

We don't need to be fully informed. We choose all the time without being fully informed. We need to be adequately informed.

Except that you have repeatedly said that what we do, good or bad, has no effect on whether god saves us. All that matters is if we accept god, we can only do that with "open eyes" and god decides if they are open.

It's all still arbitrary - God sets the test, decides if we even hear about it and punishes us for failing it even if he never told us about it in the first place.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

State? You can state what you like. According to the dictionary says nothing about how it came to be according to the dictionary.

You don't seem keen to be crowbarred from your dictionary-as-authority.

I thought I showed you fact > proof > evidence>fact circularity? It doesn't seemed to have helped.

Probably little point in continuing.

If the alternative to the dictionary is getting the meanings of words from you, then I will stick with the dictionary.
It doesn't matter how the words arrived in the dictionary - the words mean what they are defined therein to mean.

Mark Hamill

Midster wrote: »

Humans have felt, been in communication with, been in the presence of, in some cases been in the company of some kind god since further back than our history books began. And archeology even further back in time.

Why be so dismissive?

After all if 99.99999% of those cases were untrue, and wrong, that still leaves at least a small percentage of truth.

Humans have made up all kinds of stuff since further back before time began. What makes you stop at declaring 99.99999% of it as untrue and wrong?

zimmermania

It's a bit of a joke shop when people say that God exists and offer no evidence for such a statement.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know this? If so, how? Or is this statement of yours a belief?

The only way to completely know if an entity was actually god would be to have omniscience yourself, otherwise they could just be an entity sufficiently powerful that you can't see the edges of their power.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know this? If so, how? Or is this statement of yours a belief?

You've not shown any proof so yes I know this,

The title is misleading, its like having a thread title called:

You know the turtle carrying earth exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

and then you replying with the below when somebody calls out the flaw.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know this? If so, how? Or is this statement of yours a belief?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

So, what do you have against the turtle?

CramCycle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you know this? If so, how? Or is this statement of yours a belief?

Nobody here knows if that is more accurate as otherwise they could provide some sort of proof, that you could verify. Therefore, no one here knows, but some believe. This does not mean God does not exist, just that you cannot prove it.

There could be someone out there who does know, not just belief, but so far, this person or persons has not come forth to share their story. Until that person comes forward, then it remains a belief.

Cabaal

zimmermania wrote: »

It's a bit of a joke shop when people say that God exists and offer no evidence for such a statement.

But the turtle carrying earth exists, you know it exists. To claim it doesn't is just your belief

reg114

Personally i am of the belief that there is no great all seeing all doing all powerful creator to whom we can attribute the creation of the universe.

What we have seen down through the millenia is common theme. Mankind has always looked above and beyond for meaning and influence. The ancients worshipped the elements of wind and rain and the stars. When man became more sophisticated and outgrew paganism he needed to find a newer explanation for the meaning of existence, step forward organised religion. The most glaring proof to me that religion is purely a human construct is the similarity between the mainstream religions and the significance of the prophet to each. Its juts a little too coincidental and more than a little convenient that paganism was replaced with the more focused and cerebral notion of one god with a filial representation on earth.

Dont get me wrong the essence of the bible , for the most part at least is a propensity towards human goodness. But remember the bible however many writers it may have had contributing to it, is a book written by men for man's consumption. The relegation of women in the bible to bit part players is one of the greatest indictments of the bible and it is this inequity that underscores my belief that it is not a god given book.

Take away the legitimacy of the bible and attribute its writing to that of very clever men and you are staring the greatest scam in the history of mankind in the face. Ultimately the purpose of fabricating a religion is to assuage the terror associated with the unthinkable , that there is no real purpose to existence and that when you die there is no afterlife. It could even be argued that to expect to achieve immortality beyond the pearly gates where you're greeted by those who have gone before, is the ultimate in greed and arrogance. Life gives us everything imaginable and you get one shot. Chance decrees how long of a shot you get but its nothing more than chance. The meaning of life is to live and experience everything along the way nothing more and nothing less.

nozzferrahhtoo

reg114 wrote: »

What we have seen down through the millenia is common theme. Mankind has always looked above and beyond for meaning and influence.

Terry Pratchett put it best I think. That it was a mistake to call us "Homo Sapien" in the first place. We should have been called Pans Narrans. Meaning "The Story Telling Chimp".

We operate in this world by telling ourselves stories. Those stories and narratives are the interface between ourselves and our world. We have evolved to be a story telling machine. We crave them.

So it is a natural consequence of this that we so desperately seek a story.... or as you put it "meaning".... to parse all of that reality through as a whole.

And finding "meaning" in even unsubstantiated and patently ridiculous nonsense is for many seemingly a preference over acknowledging that life A) Quite probably has no meaning at all and Does not actually require one for it to BE meaningful to us.

reg114 wrote: »

The meaning of life is to live and experience everything along the way nothing more and nothing less.

The old phrase "The journey itself actually is the destination".

Huntergonzo

zimmermania wrote: »

It's a bit of a joke shop when people say that God exists and offer no evidence for such a statement.

Especially when they can't even explain what they mean by God!! It's impossible to debate with someone doesn't even understand their own beliefs.

But sure look, every good hoax needs a few good charlatans and a whole heap of suckers.

antiskeptic

nthclare wrote: »

I don't believe in the God head myself or all seeing all knowing.

Im not going to share my personal views here in my pagan beliefs because its just my thing and im in a shed out of the rain, just after sharpening a chainsaw and have no time to be towing and frowning.

But my question to antiseptic is, why try to convince people that God is real when you could be doing something productive and creative?

If you accept for a moment that my knowing God exists is like my knowing a reality external to me exists then:

Tool sharpening: iron sharpens iron.

I might know God exists but that's a big territory to explore. The specific area (or mechanism) of salvation is of interest to me. And so I seek to understand that mechanism. I might visit a theology forum and listen to views there on that mechanism. The Arminians (e.g. Methodists) suppose man capable of choice for and against God. And the Calvinists suppose man has no involvement in his salvation - that God picks this one to save amd that one to be damned for some reason not revealed to is. I differ with both and sharpen my view against their view. Similarily, an atheist forum filled with unbelievers gives opportunity to explore what is going on in unbelieving man and how that fits in.

For instance, there is much opposition in this thread to the idea that you are the final authority on everything you believe or know. That man is that, is the biblical position and naturally everyone wriggles away from that. They want scientic method or some philosophy to lend authority to what they believe and know. They don't like the inherent responsibility that comes from being their final authority.

Another reason is that salvation is God's mission and I'm aligned with his mission. He involves man in his purposes even if you'd suppose he could do better on his own. God having children is what this is all about. And the stage for settling that question (who will and won't become his children) involves man and his interaction with man. If we love we love others. If we hate we hate others. Those interactions form our answer to the question God asks of us. Do we want the things behind which Him (love, peace, joy, relationship). Or not.

Obviously, it makes sense to understand the mechanism of salvation as best you can if evangelism (a.k.a. partaking in the salvation mechanism on God's side) is of interest. What point telling people to "believe Jesus died for your sins" if thats not the optimal route?

And lets not forget the stakes. This is a serious business. If I thought I could be utilised to aid fewer heading to Hell then why wouldn't I put myself forward. I'm thick skinned enough so its not like it takes that much out of me.

If your God's so powerful and the alpha and omega, why debate it on boards?

Hopefully answered above

Having an affinity for the land and ocean and all living things makes more sense to me than believing in a suggested powerful sand demon from a land tipping off an ocean and barren desert of sand goat herders,oryx's, sand cats, fish and olive trees, junipers and oaks, lemons etc

There's nothing there of beauty to suggest that an all powerful entity decided to assimilate himself in the form of a human being to bring a message to man kind.

No i know you can suggest he chose his place of origin because its humble, and from dust we came and to dust we end etc

I've no idea why he picked there. Or why he picked a particular pagan people to become a vessel through which he would incarnate. You could speculate on end times tied in with the location of oil - as you say, there is very little else to recommend the place.

End times is not really my gig. Nevertheless it seems that mans historical drumbeat desire to promote self interest (as an individual but then spreading to nationalism) is reaching a pinnacle. Where a rock meets a hard place. Whether climate driven or dwindling resource driven (or more likely, both) war beckons. Which, given our technological ability, offers the opportunity for self-destruction. Which would be both fitting, ironic and fair. As the Radiohead song goes:"you do it to yourself, you do, and that's what really hurts". God doesn't have to end times. We can do it ourselves. The self-project runs to its logical conclusion.

It might be that great civilisations are seated there, thus the opportunity for writing down and subsequent spreading of a message?

There are any number of ideas.

A great philosophical or spiritual story could convince a lot of people of the reason he or she or it chose Bethlehem.

I don't see that it matters much to the central story. God dying for us could have happened anywhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Especially when they can't even explain what they mean by God!! It's impossible to debate with someone doesn't even understand their own beliefs.

I had a great laugh in the debate between Dan Barker and the unfortunately named Kyle Butt. In it Barker asked him to define spirit/soul.

Butt came out with a list of things, words like "non-physical" and "incorporeal". At which point Barker pointed out Butt was telling us what it is NOT. He was not telling us what it IS.

Which struck Butt dumb. He couldn't actually answer it so de deflected quite badly by defining god as "nothing". Which kinda tracked with Barkers side of things quite well.

Huntergonzo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I had a great laugh in the debate between Dan Barker and the unfortunately named Kyle Butt. In it Barker asked him to define spirit/soul.

Butt came out with a list of things, words like "non-physical" and "incorporeal". At which point Barker pointed out Butt was telling us what it is NOT. He was not telling us what it IS.

Which struck Butt dumb. He couldn't actually answer it so de deflected quite badly by defining god as "nothing". Which kinda tracked with Barkers side of things quite well.

Haha I'll go along with god as nothing, certainly nothing to suggest god does exist. Haven't seen a logical, coherent argument for the existence of any gods yet, plenty of vague rubbish of course but nothing else.