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

Donnielighto

antiskeptic wrote: »

What experts show is true depends on the experts being in a position to establish truth.

There isn't a way to establish the experts can establish truth. Sure, you can trace things back to underlying philosophies. But philosophies cannot be proven as such. You find them fitting and satisfactory to you, perhaps. That but belief though. Something held without being proveable.

It's belief all the way back to you.

What you decide is the best place to hang your hat on.

No, it's through the scientific method, something that can be demonstrated to be robust for testing hypothesis. Beyond believing what my sense tell me the rest is built up over years and through different people's knowledge.

For years the religion said that Earth was the center of everything.

You are talking about belief in practices vs belief in something can't be shown. Also there is a weight of evidence on one side (science) that religion doesn't try. One comes from being told stories as a child (indoctrination) and the other comes from critical thinking and using evidence. I used to believe in God until about 12/13 when I started to question it and then around 16 or so it was gone.

antiskeptic

Donnielighto wrote: »

No, it's through the scientific method, something that can be demonstrated to be robust for testing hypothesis

Who decided scientific method demonstrated robustness.

If not you?

Beyond believing what my sense tell me the rest is built up over years and through different people's knowledge.

Again, who decided different peoples knowledge was a guide for you. If not you?

For years the religion said that Earth was the center of everything.

I wouldn't disagree. Nor would our telescopes. Barren in all directions as far as we can tell.

You are talking about belief in practices vs belief in something can't be shown.

Why should I care that something can't be shown (to others)? Unless I have reason to care about something not being shown (to others)? And if no reason?


Same goes for you. What you are doing (I think unbeknownst to yourself) is lending weight to various external authorities. Without realising that it is you that grants them authority

I mean, if you have to wait for someone else to tell you what to believe at least realise that you are the one granting them that authority. Which .. er ... makes you the actual authority.

Quelle Surprise!

Also there is a weight of evidence on one side (science) that religion doesn't try. One comes from being told stories as a child (indoctrination) and the other comes from critical thinking and using evidence. I used to believe in God until about 12/13 when I started to question it and then around 16 or so it was gone.

Ultimately, its about whatever floats your particular boat. What my boat says is that cultural Christians aren't Christians. And so your belief in God/Santa wasn't belief out of evidence. It was gullible belief.

No harm. But not belief based on evidence.

CramCycle

Where is the evidence for this belief? Belief doesn't need it but your word says belief based on evidence. Nonetheless, to use your words, your belief appears to be based on gullibility because, all you do is say you have evidence and yet you show none except your statements. If statements of belief count as evidence, then I must state, I believe Santa is real, I do not believe in the god of which you refer or any version you have presented it as real. Therefore we are at an empasse.

antiskeptic

CramCycle wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this belief? Belief doesn't need it but your word says belief based on evidence

I use the language of athiests: "I can't believe without evidence"

Knowing is just a belief construct. The basis of 'knowing' is beliefs about how one arrives there. The ideas behind how we know can't be demonstrated. At least, satisfactory demonstration' is based on a belief about what constitutes satisfactory.

There doesn't seem to be a way to rid youself from the sticky toffee paper. It always seems to arrive back at self.

Huntergonzo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah I dipped into conversation with the OP before he ran away and ignored my post. It felt a little bit like this however Wont be doing it again but I read his commentary on my posts with amusement none the less.

Hahaha, when things get though (or even straightforward) the religious get confused or just duck.

To me it basically boils down to this, among religious believers the willingness to believe is greater than the ability to question. The fact there have been so many 'gods' in documented human history alone should be a little bit of a give away that the god myth might just be poo poo.

However, you will simply never reach anybody with this disposition, but it can be fun to watch them construct long, strange, vague, mindless tangles of sentences that go nowhere and ultimately say nothing.

Ps, may the flying spaghetti monster be under your bonnet always :-)

CramCycle

antiskeptic wrote: »

I use the language of athiests: "I can't believe without evidence"

I can believe without evidence, anyone can, I just can't prove it is fact. You seem to struggle with this concept. Anyone can believe anything, bit belief is not proof. Like yourself, you can claim it is fact or undeniable but that does make it true.

Knowing is just a belief construct. The basis of 'knowing' is beliefs about how one arrives there. The ideas behind how we know can't be demonstrated. At least, satisfactory demonstration' is based on a belief about what constitutes satisfactory.

There doesn't seem to be a way to rid youself from the sticky toffee paper. It always seems to arrive back at self.

You remind of people I grew up with many years ago, well actually, one of three types of people who appear the same from the outset. They would often waffle incoherently to either convince themselves, or those around them, or both that what they believed was fact and undeniable, rather than accept that it was simply a belief, and while saying it is a fact couldn't grasp the issues linguistically with what they were saying. They are those who claim something is fact, not believing it but realising it benefitted them to do so, the second believed something was fact, believed it so much they could not comprehend how it could not be true and thirdly those who could not differentiate linguistically between the word belief and proof. I would put you in either of the last two. I cannot tell if you do not understand the concepts or if you cannot handle the possibility that there is a chance what you believe is not real. It might be, it just might not be. I believe Lots of things that are not fact or provable, my belief does not make it true nor does the lack of evidence make it untrue. It simply means it is a belief, not a fact or proof.

antiskeptic

CramCycle wrote: »

I can believe without evidence, anyone can, I just can't prove it is fact. You seem to struggle with this concept. Anyone can believe anything, bit belief is not proof. Like yourself, you can claim it is fact or undeniable but that does make it true.

I'm using atheist terminology as I say. Besides, the word believe doesn't preclude the belief being well evidenced. It just means to accept as true. Like you accept as true that the earth is round and not flat. You have good reason to accept it as true.

You believe..


Believe

a: to consider to be true or honest

b: to accept the word or evidence of

Or..

1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

In other words, you can believe because of a proof or because you have good evidence. Believe isn't weak and so can be used by an athiest as above.


I'd remind you that my purpose here isn't to evidence. I can point out aspects of a mechanism for you to follow round, without evidencing that this mechanism is the one operating in out lives.

Take conscience. You can hold it to be an evolutionary vestige, something that doesn't tie into any objective reference (i.e. God). If it does however, then you know what objective good is, despite your denial.

You would know because knowledge has been inserted in you by God. He doesn't need to evidence to know what he knows. And can create you in his image, knowing without you having to be given evidence.

Although you do get evidence, shame and guilt for example. Of course, you can deny this objective too.

Until a day comes when you can't deny amy longer. Hopefully that day will be the day of your salvation and not the day on which you are damned.

You remind of people I grew up with many years ago, well actually, one of three types of people who appear the same from the outset. They would often waffle incoherently to either convince themselves, or those around them, or both that what they believed was fact and undeniable, rather than accept that it was simply a belief, and while saying it is a fact couldn't grasp the issues linguistically with what they were saying. They are those who claim something is fact, not believing it but realising it benefitted them to do so, the second believed something was fact, believed it so much they could not comprehend how it could not be true and thirdly those who could not differentiate linguistically between the word belief and proof. I would put you in either of the last two. I cannot tell if you do not understand the concepts or if you cannot handle the possibility that there is a chance what you believe is not real. It might be, it just might not be. I believe Lots of things that are not fact or provable, my belief does not make it true nor does the lack of evidence make it untrue. It simply means it is a belief, not a fact or proof.

You haven't dealt with the issue. Know, belief, fact, prove, etc. are all constructs that originate in yourself. You'll point to a proof. The proof will be assembled from components all of which trace back to yourself.

Its all very well to say "I'm drawing a line at the dictionary" and refusing to consider where the definition comes from.

It seems the ultimate originator for these ideas is self and the starting assumptions that everything rolls from.

Getting your knickers a twist that someone isn't prepared to play ball and draw the line where you want it drawn is a tad "its my ball and I'm going home"

There's a reason why you halt where you halt. It helps sustain your belief system.

CramCycle

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm using atheist terminology as I say. Besides, the word believe doesn't preclude the belief being well evidenced. It just means to accept as true. Like you accept as true that the earth is round and not flat. You have good reason to accept it as true.

The dictionary is athiest "terminology". I think you will find it is everyones terminology.

You believe..


Believe

I had written a reply but you edited your post to add in more, thankfully, what you have added is in line with what I was about to say.

a: to consider to be true or honest

The key word is consider

b: to accept the word or evidence of

Accept is the word here, you fail to grasp that acceptance does not make fact. In your case you believe something to be true, it does not make it true or false, it is simply a belief, you have accepted a word, it does not mean that the word is true, just that you have accepted it, nothing more, nothing less.

1. accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

Which again is what you have done.

Do you finally understand? You have a belief, no proof has been given for an no proof against.

In other words, you can believe because of a proof. Believe isn't weak and so can be used by an athiest as above.

I cannot believe because of proof, I can choose to believe or not. Proof makes something acceptable to me but if evidence in the future changes the proof, then I will adapt my viewpoint. Something is either factual or not, my belief has nothing to do with it.

You haven't dealt with the issue. Know, belief, fact, prove, etc. are all constructs that originate in yourself. You'll point to a proof. The proof will be assembled from components all of which trace back to yourself.

The funny thing about proof of something I believe in is that unless it is validated by someone else, it isn't proof as it has an inherent bias. this said, that person must have had no bias or predisposition either which is why many struggle with the concept.

Its all very well to say "I'm drawing a line at the dictionary" and refusing to consider where the definition comes from.

Those are the definitions we are using as it is our common tongue. And there it is, the truth, you have just changed what the word means to you, to make your inane ramblings a semblance of sense to yourself. That is fine. I choose not to do this as it makes communication easier for me to others.

It seems the ultimate originator for these ideas is self and the starting assumptions that everything rolls from.

Getting your knickers a twist that someone isn't prepared to play ball and draw the line where you want it drawn is a tad "its my ball and I'm going home"

Not really, it is more like you turned upto a Football game with a sliotar, called it a football and couldn't grasp that no matter how many times you used the word football, it didn't change the fact that you, in everyones mind but your own, had a sliotar in your hand. There is nothing wrong with calling it a football, it doesn't do any harm, but you have to understand that there are common terms with which to communicate, and no matter how much you change what you think a word means, all everyoen else will think is,ah, antiskeptic thinks a sliotar is called a football, and is never going to learn.

There's a reason why you halt where you halt. It helps sustain your belief system.

i don't halt anywhere, you appear to be arguing something exists without proof, and state it as a fact (it is not impossible) even though by all known definitions, it is a belief. I seem to be arguing semantics with a bot.

antiskeptic

The end of the world is nigh

The point isn't that the end of the world is here. The point is the way we think we are better and smarter than we are. Until we find out otherwise.

Good line on how the man went bankrupt "first it was gradually, then it was suddenly"

the_syco

antiskeptic wrote: »

Take conscience. You can hold it to be an evolutionary vestige, something that doesn't tie into any objective reference (i.e. God). If it does however, then you know what objective good is, despite your denial.

You would know because knowledge has been inserted in you by God.

So are you saying that God inserted the knowledge that those meddling kids Jews will thwart his world domination plans, and thus Hitler had to get rid of them? He did it in good conscience, for the good of the German people.

Or are you going to spew the usual nonsense that when man does bad things, it's free will, but when he does good things, it's gods power?

No doubt you'll call this a strawman argument, but heck, so is your belief that magic man in the sky magically made good people good, and all bad people is free will.

Would you not consider conscience as part of human free will?

robindch

CramCycle wrote: »

They would often waffle incoherently to either convince themselves, or those around them, or both that what they believed was fact and undeniable, rather than accept that it was simply a belief [...]

I'm reminded what one UK scientist wrote after reading a book on biology by some religious writer - "The author can be forgiven a charge of dishonesty on the sole ground that before attempting to mislead others, he has gone to great lengths first to misled himself".

Fourier

Midster wrote: »

Earth certainly is special, so special that even with our modern ultra powerful telescopes we haven’t yet found anything like our earth.

It's certainly very special in the sense that planets like Earth are very rare. Even very vaguely Earth like planets are estimated to only number between 2-6 million in our galaxy. Earth like here means rocky planet at the right distance from its star.

Planets with additional features that make microbial life a possibility probably only number in the thousands. It could be the case that genuine Earth's with highly complex life only number <5 per galaxy like the Milky Way. That would still leave around a billion Earths in the whole universe. So Earths would be very very rare, but there are still plenty of them. Each would be the product of extremely rare and special circumstances, it's just that the universe is a very big place.

Now given such Earths with precisely the right conditions we don't know how commonly life develops on them since Life is a very complex chemical process and knowing how likely it is to emerge among the range of chemical processes typically found on such planets is an intractable problem.

CramCycle

Fourier wrote: »

Now given such Earths with precisely the right conditions we don't know how commonly life develops on them since Life is a very complex chemical process and knowing how likely it is to emerge among the range of chemical processes typically found on such planets is an intractable problem.

On my phone so will try and find it but I have a recollection of a UK university putting what they thought was present on earth before life existed and showing it was very favourable for the building blocks of life about 10 years ago. This followed up on the famous Miller Uray experiments.

If they are accurate (and I am going from memory) and your numbers are right, your looking at a strong chance of 1 to 5 planets that not only support life but actively promote it. Doesn't mean it has happened or it is intelligent bar us (evidence to the contrary), but it's not impossible. I believe it's possible based on the data provided, but it is not a fact or proof that life away from Earth exists, it's a belief in a possibility. The same way God is a possibility. I don't believe in either, on the balance of probabilities with the data to hand, to me, one is more likely than the other by a long shot.

antiskeptic

CramCycle wrote: »

On my phone so will try and find it but I have a recollection of a UK university putting what they thought was present on earth before life existed and showing it was very favourable for the building blocks of life about 10 years ago. This followed up on the famous Miller Uray experiments.

If they are accurate (and I am going from memory) and your numbers are right, your looking at a strong chance of 1 to 5 planets that not only support life but actively promote it. Doesn't mean it has happened or it is intelligent bar us (evidence to the contrary), but it's not impossible. I believe it's possible based on the data provided, but it is not a fact or proof that life away from Earth exists, it's a belief in a possibility. The same way God is a possibility. I don't believe in either, on the balance of probabilities with the data to hand, to me, one is more likely than the other by a long shot.

Then there's the possibility of life arising in dissimilar conditions (once you believe life arose at all).

That life arose our way could be one of infinite ways in which life could arise.

You might have to rethink the standard dictionary definition though (which people aren't fond of around here). If you had 'life' that didn't reproduce and didn't die (for example), would that be life?

The possibilities appear to be anywhere between infinitely large and zero.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then there's the possibility of life arising in dissimilar conditions (once you believe life arose at all).

That life arose our way could be one of infinite ways in which life could arise.

You might have to rethink the standard dictionary definition though (which people aren't fond of around here). If you had 'life' that didn't reproduce and didn't die (for example), would that be life?

The possibilities appear to be anywhere between infinitely large and zero.

You might want to read the standard dictionary definition of life. It is exceptionally broad, with no less than twenty four distinct meanings listed in Merriam-Webster alone, twenty of which are nouns. Which of these meanings is appropriate depends largely on context.

CramCycle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then there's the possibility of life arising in dissimilar conditions (once you believe life arose at all).

Of course,

That life arose our way could be one of infinite ways in which life could arise.

True

You might have to rethink the standard dictionary definition though (which people aren't fond of around here). If you had 'life' that didn't reproduce and didn't die (for example), would that be life?

You'd need to give a more specific example, being vague as always makes it hard to respond. If something is alive, it can die, it just might not have yet. Are you saying the species cannot reproduce?, where did it come from? when did it start? and finally it maybe something that is clearly alive and therefore the definition needs to change at that point. This is very different to misusing or misunderstanding or misinterpreting the definition/meaning of a word.

The possibilities appear to be anywhere between infinitely large and zero.

The possibilities exist

the_syco

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you had 'life' that didn't reproduce and didn't die (for example), would that be life?

It could be life. It could also be someones science experiment in a petri dish.

Are you saying that your god that wasn't born was someones science experiment? That does sound awfully like the ancient astronaut theory.

Cabaal

the_syco wrote: »

Are you saying that your god that wasn't born was someones science experiment? That does sound awfully like the ancient astronaut theory.

antiskeptic

A very entertaining but very perceptive sermon I came across which kind of fits the thread. Anyone could enjoy it, see the sense in it and take a lesson from it without believing in God.

Its effectiveness is its putting a finger on something the world is clearly wholesale geared towards. A world-scale drug as it were.

And so, the question: who or what is the drug pusher.

It all goes back in the box

iceman700

A Lot of arguments here center around the fact that there is no evidence of God, therefore how can we know he exists, and people who accept the good book, often through out quotations from the Bible as truth.
Its not, unless you have had personal experience, but your personal experience can never be someone elses proof.
It all boils down to the same thing, seek your own proof, and then you will know.
Many use the argument, there is no God because bad things happen, that which happened to the Jews for example.
You all have freewill, why do you blame God, for what man does.

smacl

iceman700 wrote: »

A Lot of arguments here center around the fact that there is no evidence of God, therefore how can we know he exists, and people who accept the good book, often through out quotations from the Bible as truth.
Its not, unless you have had personal experience, but your personal experience can never be someone elses proof.
It all boils down to the same thing, seek your own proof, and then you will know.
Many use the argument, there is no God because bad things happen, that which happened to the Jews for example.
You all have freewill, why do you blame God, for what man does.

So if a young child dies a painful death of cancer, how is that a function of free will and in what sense has God been benevolent?

Mark Hamill

iceman700 wrote: »

A Lot of arguments here center around the fact that there is no evidence of God, therefore how can we know he exists, and people who accept the good book, often through out quotations from the Bible as truth.
Its not, unless you have had personal experience, but your personal experience can never be someone elses proof.
It all boils down to the same thing, seek your own proof, and then you will know.
Many use the argument, there is no God because bad things happen, that which happened to the Jews for example.
You all have freewill, why do you blame God, for what man does.

People all over the world "seek their own proof" and end up with completely contradictory "proofs". They can't all be right, in fact only one at most can be right, therefore "seeking your own proof" (whatever that actually entails) is not a valid way of determining truth.

If god's existence is supposed to be an objective truth, then why is the evidence for it not?

storker

iceman700 wrote: »

You all have freewill, why do you blame God, for what man does.

Because (let's pretend he exists for a moment) this loving, caring god sits back and does nothing while the most terrible fates and experiences are inflicted on his people. And it's not just a question of illnesses or accidents (and I struggle to see how so many of these are down to the free will of the victims), it's also a question of the ****ty lives he allows some people to lead; abject, grinding poverty from cradle to grave (and some times the second happens very soon after the first) with the interim spent being hungry, fearful and living a miserable existence in squalid conditions.

As has been pointed out before, either god cannot do anything about these things, or he doesn't want to. If he can't, then he isn't all-powerful, which must surely call into question his creation of the universe, or he doesn't want to, in which he can't be good or made from love.

It all comes down to one thing: too many holes in the story.


.

CramCycle

Not a believer of any kind but in regards God, why is there this belief he must be good? He seemed like a bit of a d1ck in the old testament, no reason to think he cares about anything if he does exist.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

Not a believer of any kind but in regards God, why is there this belief he must be good? He seemed like a bit of a d1ck in the old testament, no reason to think he cares about anything if he does exist.

In Christianity the bible seems pretty categorical on that one; https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_is_good In fact not just good, but omnibenevolent according to many. The old 'mysterious ways' clause is wearing somewhat thin.

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

In Christianity the bible seems pretty categorical on that one; https://www.openbible.info/topics/god_is_good In fact not just good, but omnibenevolent according to many. The old 'mysterious ways' clause is wearing somewhat thin.

Suppose myself and others have a different opinion on what good means, telling a guy to kill his kid (by burning her by the way), wiping out a load of Egyptian kids rather than the ones who are actually being the d1cks, also, not a nice move in my book. Also hating people who are a bit different, even though, if he exists, these differences were by his design. And

Maybe Good, and it probably did, meant something different back then. HIstorical context etc but I still stand over the, if he was or is real, then he is a d1ck.

nozzferrahhtoo

iceman700 wrote: »

Its not, unless you have had personal experience, but your personal experience can never be someone elses proof.

Even when someone else has the SAME personal experience, that does not make it evidence (Careful with the word proof). For example many people have certain experiences during meditation. Some people interpret that experience as evidence there is a god or gods. Someone else having the exact same experience does not.

iceman700 wrote: »

It all boils down to the same thing, seek your own proof, and then you will know.

Yeah the people who believe the number 23 controls everything do that too. There was a Jim Carey film about them. If you seek proof you can often find it IF you are willing to assume the conclusion true before applying the evidence.

But if you need to assume the conclusion in order for evidence to be evidence, then it is not good evidence. Be it for a god, or for the number 23.

iceman700 wrote: »

You all have freewill, why do you blame God, for what man does.

Do you have any evidence for the existence of free will? It is by no means an automatic given we DO have free will. So it is not an assumption I use either way at this time.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

Suppose myself and others have a different opinion on what good means, telling a guy to kill his kid (by burning her by the way), wiping out a load of Egyptian kids rather than the ones who are actually being the d1cks, also, not a nice move in my book. Also hating people who are a bit different, even though, if he exists, these differences were by his design. And

Maybe Good, and it probably did, meant something different back then. HIstorical context etc but I still stand over the, if he was or is real, then he is a d1ck.

Alas, claimed omniscience means that historical context isn't God's get out of jail card here. If you exist outside of time and space, once a dick, always a dick. One of the major problems I have religion is its notion of absolutes, notably moral, which it claims to be independent of context. It is all horseshít of course, as even the most fundamental imperatives, e.g. thou shallt not kill, have plenty of get out clauses for those who need them.

Pherekydes

CramCycle wrote: »

Not a believer of any kind but in regards God, why is there this belief he must be good? He seemed like a bit of a d1ck in the old testament, no reason to think he cares about anything if he does exist.

Or even why he's a he?

If a god exists, I'm sure it's a she.

But only a benevolent one. Her hubby's the ouanquer who sends plagues.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

In Christianity [...] omnibenevolent

Not only omnibenevolent, but omniscient and omnipotent too - leading to the well-known "Problem of Evil":

https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then he can't be omnibenevolent since he allows evil to take place. If he's omniscient and omnibenevolent, then he can't be omnipotent since evil takes place. If he's omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then he can't be omniscient since evil takes place. And if he's not omnibenevolent, omnipotent or omniscient, then - as somebody once asked - why bother calling him 'god'?