Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

oldrnwisr · 01-03-2016 02:25PM

steamengine wrote: »

I'm not alone, there are billions like me. Interestingly enough I checked recently and about half of the worlds leading cosmologists also have some sort of belief in God. I regard them as the theologians of our time, in that they are reaching back to the moment of creation.

Well, in a word no.

There is a difference between all scientists or even all cosmologists and leading cosmologists, however, neither term supports your claim above.

The largest survey of leading scientists concerning religious views was undertaken in the journal Nature in 1998. This study found that among physical scientists disbelief in God was 79.0%, compared to a disbelief of 65.2% among biological scientists. The study also found that the overall rate of belief in a personal God was just 7% (which is where the much vaunted 93% of the NAS are atheists claim comes from).

Leading Scientists still reject God

More recently in 2009, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of scientists in the general population. They found that scientists who believed in God made up 33% with a further 18% believing in some sort of higher power while 41% rejected the idea of a God and 7% refused to answer.

Scientists and Belief

Furthermore, one of the world's leading cosmologists Sean Carroll has already argued quite brilliantly why cosmologists are overwhelmingly atheists here:

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Finally, here's a quick survey of the religious views of the Physics Department of the University of Nottingham from the Sixty Symbols YT channel (including 3 cosmologists):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7VcLCwnpt4

Yes, there are some cosmologists who are religious, including a few leading ones, but it's nowhere near half.

EDIT: Yes, there are billions like you, about 2 billion Christians in fact. That means, however, that there are over 5 billion people who don't believe what you believe. Ever wonder why?

54and56 · 01-03-2016 02:33PM

steamengine wrote: »

I'm not alone, there are billions like me.

Reminds me of Ballinaspittle 1985 when mass hysteria convinced lot's of religious people that a concrete statue was moving. I was living in the area (about 6 miles away) at the time and one of the funniest stories which emerged was a bus load of people (presumably christians like yourself) were travelling down to witness the miracle for themselves but stopped in Ballnadee a village about 4 miles from Ballinaspittle which also has a grotto and statue of mary on the way in. They started praying and praising god for the miracle they were witnessing etc until a local pointed out that they were at the wrong grotto.

Now that I've recalled that story it may in fact have been the "Eureka" moment where I realised that when it comes to religion the king really doesn't have any clothes.

Here's the Ballinadee grotto

and here's the Ballinspittle grotto

pauldla · 01-03-2016 03:10PM

steamengine wrote: »

Believers might also say - 'I believe, but I at times doubt there is a God.' - which is something similar.

I don't see how it is, to be frank. Atheism is not a mirror image of your belief, it's an absence of your belief. I don't find myself sometimes thinking 'Y'know, old boy, maybe there is a God after all.'

....
For those who believe in God, it's usually subjective but very definite in some cases such as people who have reported back on their near death experiences, and others have experienced dramatic conversions where they have experienced the presence of God in their lives.
....

The case for NDEs is paper-thin, though. There is a Chinese expression that springs to mind: 'Sichuan dogs bark at the sun' (shuquan-feiri), meaning to be startled or surprised by something due to ignorance (in this case, our limited understanding of how the brain functions near death). As for dramatic conversions, is that in effect nothing more than asking me to believe because others believe?

steamengine · 01-03-2016 03:37PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, in a word no.

There is a difference between all scientists or even all cosmologists and leading cosmologists, however, neither term supports your claim above.

The largest survey of leading scientists concerning religious views was undertaken in the journal Nature in 1998. This study found that among physical scientists disbelief in God was 79.0%, compared to a disbelief of 65.2% among biological scientists. The study also found that the overall rate of belief in a personal God was just 7% (which is where the much vaunted 93% of the NAS are atheists claim comes from).

Leading Scientists still reject God

More recently in 2009, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of scientists in the general population. They found that scientists who believed in God made up 33% with a further 18% believing in some sort of higher power while 41% rejected the idea of a God and 7% refused to answer.

Scientists and Belief

Yes, there are some cosmologists who are religious, including a few leading ones, but it's nowhere near half.

EDIT: Yes, there are billions like you, about 2 billion Christians in fact. That means, however, that there are over 5 billion people who don't believe what you believe. Ever wonder why?

I don't think it's correct to dismiss the point I'm making just because you dispute the 'half' part. I'm not into parsing or analysing - just trying to get the message across that a good proportion of scientists do in fact believe in God.

http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/

Yes, there are billions of us including those of other religions too which believe in the same God. Ever wonder why yourself ?

54and56 · 01-03-2016 03:42PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yes, there are billions of us including those of other religions too which believe in the same God. Ever wonder why yourself ?

I think you'll find its actually the act of wondering why which produces most Atheists.

Do you ever wonder why you believe in the god you've chosen to believe in? (other than your prior answer that your were just "lucky")

Do you ever wonder how the majority of people in the world who believe in a god got their choice wrong? (assuming your god is in fact the one true god)

steamengine · 01-03-2016 03:49PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I think you'll find its actually the act of wondering why which produces most Atheists.

Do you ever wonder why you believe in the god you've chosen to believe in? (other than your prior answer that your were just "lucky")

Do you ever wonder how the majority of people in the world who believe in a god got their choice wrong? (assuming your god is in fact the one true god)

Yes to your first question and N/A to your second, as I think their choice is correct. My God would be a universal God, the one God.

54and56 · 01-03-2016 03:57PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yes to your first question and N/A to your second, as I think their choice is correct. My God would be a universal God, the one God.

So,

1. Yes you do think about why you have chosen the god you believe in but you're keeping it a secret?

2. All gods, regardless of their progeny are equal? They are all one god?

oldrnwisr · 01-03-2016 03:58PM

steamengine wrote: »

I don't think it's correct to dismiss the point I'm making just because you dispute the 'half' part. I'm not into parsing or analysing - just trying to get the message across that a good proportion of scientists do in fact believe in God.

http://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god/

Yes, there are billions of us including those of other religions too which believe in the same God. Ever wonder why yourself ?

OK, firstly I wasn't dismissing your point, I wasn't commenting on your point at all, I was merely showing that your claim about "half the leading cosmologists believe in a God" is wrong. And, FWIW at best the Pew Research Center gives the percentage of scientists who believe in God as 33% so not what I'd call a good proportion and a list of cherry picked quotes is hardly evidence to support your contention given that some of them have been dead for hundreds of years.

However, since you raise your overall point, it is also wrong. The fact that there are billions like you says nothing about the truth of your religious beliefs, that is what is known as the argumentum ad populum or appeal to popularity:

Appeal to popularity

Your religious beliefs stand or fall with the truth of the individual claims of your religion not how many people believe in them. So, for example, it matters what evidence there is to suggest that someone called Jesus really did rise from the dead. It doesn't matter how many people believe he did.

Secondly, the other 5 billion people include those who are non-religious but more importantly include people whose concept of god (or gods for that matter) differ enormously from your concept of god. So the idea that those other people worship the same god is equally wrong (like Hindus for example).

Finally, yes I have wondered why people believe the things they do, in fact it's most of the reason why I'm an atheist.

EDIT: One more thing. Let's say in regard to the scientists, we grant your premise of half. You seem interested that half of scientists believe in a God. However you don't seem at all interested in the motivations of the half that don't believe in a God. Why is that? Shouldn't you be at least a little curious about why the people who don't believe as you do believe what they do?

steamengine · 01-03-2016 04:51PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, firstly I wasn't dismissing your point, I wasn't commenting on your point at all, I was merely showing that your claim about "half the leading cosmologists believe in a God" is wrong. And, FWIW at best the Pew Research Center gives the percentage of scientists who believe in God as 33% so not what I'd call a good proportion and a list of cherry picked quotes is hardly evidence to support your contention given that some of them have been dead for hundreds of years.

Yes the half was wrong - the point stands though.

However, since you raise your overall point, it is also wrong. The fact that there are billions like you says nothing about the truth of your religious beliefs, that is what is known as the argumentum ad populum or appeal to popularity:

Appeal to popularity

Or all those billions of believers could be correct. The option of whether God exists or not is open to debate. It cannot be proved or disproved.

Your religious beliefs stand or fall with the truth of the individual claims of your religion not how many people believe in them. So, for example, it matters what evidence there is to suggest that someone called Jesus really did rise from the dead. It doesn't matter how many people believe he did.

Secondly, the other 5 billion people include those who are non-religious but more importantly include people whose concept of god (or gods for that matter) differ enormously from your concept of god. So the idea that those other people worship the same god is equally wrong (like Hindus for example).

All added to the total of those who believe in any God - as atheists don't believe in any God.

Finally, yes I have wondered why people believe the things they do, in fact it's most of the reason why I'm an atheist.

EDIT: One more thing. Let's say in regard to the scientists, we grant your premise of half. You seem interested that half of scientists believe in a God. However you don't seem at all interested in the motivations of the half that don't believe in a God. Why is that? Shouldn't you be at least a little curious about why the people who don't believe as you do believe what they do?

To be fair, that's the question I have been asking - How can atheists be so sure there is no God ? General consensus answer - 'It's up to you to prove there is a God.' Then it turns out some of you sort of do believe, with some sort of agnostic atheist clause added. Really that's my overall point - the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven by normal scientific means.

I say disproven because whether you agree from an atheistic perspective or not, when billions of people believe in something then you have to disprove their belief.

lazygal · 01-03-2016 05:39PM

My children have zero concept of religion. They know of no God or gods whatsoever. It isn't an absence of belief, any more than they don't know about the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Millions believe in them, but that doesn't mean they exist.

volchitsa · 01-03-2016 06:12PM

steamengine wrote: »

Yes the half was wrong - the point stands though.

All added to the total of those who believe in any God - as atheists don't believe in any God.

To be fair, that's the question I have been asking - How can atheists be so sure there is no God ? General consensus answer - 'It's up to you to prove there is a God.' Then it turns out some of you sort of do believe, with some sort of agnostic atheist clause added. Really that's my overall point - the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven by normal scientific means.

I say disproven because whether you agree from an atheistic perspective or not, when billions of people believe in something then you have to disprove their belief.

Lots of people believe in ghosts and witches. Does that mean you have to disprove that belief before you can say you don't believe in them?

steamengine · 01-03-2016 06:22PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Lots of people believe in ghosts and witches. Does that mean you have to disprove that belief before you can say you don't believe in them?

I believe in ghosts, I lived in a haunted house for many years. Many people would say, and they did - 'I don't believe that nonsense'. Prove there's a ghost.

Fair enough - I'm the believer and they want proof. Conversely though, because I'm convinced of my beliefs, I would require proof the opposite way that the house wasn't haunted.

And might I add this is a Christian forum, so expect such responses.

volchitsa · 01-03-2016 07:07PM

steamengine wrote: »

I believe in ghosts, I lived in a haunted house for many years. Many people would say, and they did - 'I don't believe that nonsense'. Prove there's a ghost.

Fair enough - I'm the believer and they want proof. Conversely though, because I'm convinced of my beliefs, I would require proof the opposite way that the house wasn't haunted.

Except you know it's impossible to prove a negative. So your request is by definition nonsensical.

And might I add this is a Christian forum, so expect such responses.

Nice try at getting out of the bind you've got yourself into

- it was you (or if not you then another believer) who asked why atheists were sure of their non-belief, not the other way around.

steamengine · 01-03-2016 07:31PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Except you know it's impossible to prove a negative. So your request is by definition nonsensical.

Nice try at getting out of the bind you've got yourself into - it was you (or if not you then another believer) who asked why atheists were sure of their non-belief, not the other way around.

I really don't know what you're on about - I get the impression that awkward questions are now deflected with that tired cliche - it's impossible to prove a negative - the classic atheist cop out.. So rather than go round in circles, I'll give it a rest.

AtomicHorror · 01-03-2016 07:52PM

steamengine wrote: »

I really don't know what you're on about - I get the impression that awkward questions are now deflected with that tired cliche - it's impossible to prove a negative. So rather than go round in circles I'll give it a rest.

I think the real issue is that you're not grasping the logical problem with proving negatives.

It's a cliche, but not for the reason you're suggesting.

You're also dodging burden of evidence, which is why we're going in circles.

54and56 · 01-03-2016 08:16PM

This is where these discussions usually end. The religious person does the equivalent of a child covering their face with their hands and then saying with utter certainty that no one can see them.

It's kind of cute in a child but embarrassing in an adult who instead of having the courage to accept their religious hypothesis is entirely made up hide behind a meaningless "prove a negative" circular argument.

QED really.

volchitsa · 01-03-2016 08:23PM

steamengine wrote: »

I really don't know what you're on about - I get the impression that awkward questions are now deflected with that tired cliche - it's impossible to prove a negative. So rather than go round in circles I'll give it a rest.

Why not try again, seeing as you asked the question : so you believe in ghosts, fine.

Do you also believe in Leprechauns, Korrigans, Trolls,dragons, witches, wizards, zombies, elves, will-o'-the-wisps, the Aboriginal Dreamtime creatures and all the various supernatural beings that exist in various mythologies all around the world, or do you think it likely that some or all of them may actually be attempts by humans at explaining physical phenomena they didnt understand but that we often now do (lightning, methane gas releases or earthquakes for example)?

And assuming that you don't literally believe in all of them, do you agree that it would be silly to expect you to disprove each and every one of those mythical creatures before we can accept that you really don't believe in them?

oldrnwisr · 01-03-2016 09:37PM

steamengine wrote: »

To be fair, that's the question I have been asking - How can atheists be so sure there is no God ? General consensus answer - 'It's up to you to prove there is a God.' Then it turns out some of you sort of do believe, with some sort of agnostic atheist clause added.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that agnostic atheism is some kind of hedging your bets stance regarding gods. To reiterate, there are two factors here knowledge and belief. I don't know if there is a god or not and so I am agnostic with respect to the concept of a god. However, I don't believe that there is one because no-one has provided me with sufficient evidence or reasoned argument to make me think that there is one (or more). So for that reason, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't positively believe in a god, but since I don't know if there isn't one I don't positively believe that there is definitely no god either. It's not some halfway position that you seem to think it is. This might help explain the position better for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

steamengine wrote: »

Really that's my overall point - the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven by normal scientific means.

The problem with this idea is that people are rarely deist or vanilla theist. Your religious beliefs don't just stop at I believe there is a god. You're a Christian which means that your god has a well defined set of characteristics and a substantial biography. This means that people make claims about your god and his character which can be examined using logic, history, science etc.
Take, for example, the Christian god is described in several places as omniscient such as in 1 John 3:20:

"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

However, in other passages we see God being less than omniscient such as in Genesis 22:12:

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Here we see a contradiction. Not only is the phrase "Now I know" out of step with an omnisicient being but also the very idea of an omniscient God performing a test in the first place when he would have to have already known the answer creates a contradiction in the narrative. Thus we have reason to doubt the claim that the Christian god is omnipotent. Bear in mind that this says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god, of a generic deity, just the particular flavour of god that Christians propound.

Yes, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of some kind of god which is why the honest answer is I don't know. However, either the existence of god is suggested by some evidence in our universe which can be tested using scientific means or there isn't any evidence to suppose that there is a god in the first place, other than inductive reasoning.

steamengine wrote: »

I say disproven because whether you agree from an atheistic perspective or not, when billions of people believe in something then you have to disprove their belief.

No, just no. The burden of proof for a claim rests with the one making the claim. It doesn't matter how many people believe the claim. For example, if you ever find yourself on jury service you may hear the judge explain the principle that "he who alleges must prove." You see, this is the way the world works. We assume claims to be rejected until they can be demonstrated with evidence. New drugs are assumed not to work and cannot be given to the general public until they have been through rigorous trials to prove that they do work. Your claim that a god exists is a positive claim and it is for you and all the others who share your belief to support this claim with evidence. Here's another video from qualiasoup to explain things in more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

CabanSail · 02-03-2016 12:34AM

The probability of "Your God" existing is quite low.

Each religion believes that their god/s are the ones which exist and reject the god/s of the others. So for that religion they are in a minority with all the other religions and the atheists on the other side. (Some sects within those religions make the minority smaller still)

Those who are Atheist will therefore always be on the majority side, as a group who does not believe in a specific god or gods.

That is just maths and statistics.

BMMachine · 02-03-2016 02:24AM

Mental Gymnastics.

54and56 · 02-03-2016 07:39AM

steamengine wrote: »

I say disproven because whether you agree from an atheistic perspective or not, when billions of people believe in something then you have to disprove their belief.

What quorum is needed for a belief to be taken as given and the burden of proof placed on others to disprove it? 2? 20? 200? 2,000? 20,000? 200,000? 2 million? 2 billion?

If 2 people believe there is a god on the moon called MoonMan who is creator of the universe and guides our individual daily lives are their claims to be taken as seriously as the god 2 million or 2 billion people believe in?

Is the validity of a particular religious claim a popularity competition i.e. the more people believe in something the more valid it is? Or are all claims regardless of how ridiculous they are and how few/many people subscribe to the particular hypothesis to be given equal treatment?

MrPudding · 02-03-2016 07:55AM

steamengine wrote: »

I really don't know what you're on about - I get the impression that awkward questions are now deflected with that tired cliche - it's impossible to prove a negative - the classic atheist cop out.. So rather than go round in circles, I'll give it a rest.

Don't forget your ball.

MrP

steamengine · 03-03-2016 09:08AM

CabanSail wrote: »

The probability of "Your God" existing is quite low.

Each religion believes that their god/s are the ones which exist and reject the god/s of the others. So for that religion they are in a minority with all the other religions and the atheists on the other side. (Some sects within those religions make the minority smaller still)

Those who are Atheist will therefore always be on the majority side, as a group who does not believe in a specific god or gods.

That is just maths and statistics.

That's not correct, Christians outnumber atheists for a start.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

Clearly down through the centuries, more religions have evolved - to follow your reasoning every time a new religion came about, God sub-divided accordingly.

steamengine · 03-03-2016 09:29AM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that agnostic atheism is some kind of hedging your bets stance regarding gods. To reiterate, there are two factors here knowledge and belief. I don't know if there is a god or not and so I am agnostic with respect to the concept of a god. However, I don't believe that there is one because no-one has provided me with sufficient evidence or reasoned argument to make me think that there is one (or more). So for that reason, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't positively believe in a god, but since I don't know if there isn't one I don't positively believe that there is definitely no god either. It's not some halfway position that you seem to think it is. This might help explain the position better for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

The problem with this idea is that people are rarely deist or vanilla theist. Your religious beliefs don't just stop at I believe there is a god. You're a Christian which means that your god has a well defined set of characteristics and a substantial biography. This means that people make claims about your god and his character which can be examined using logic, history, science etc.
Take, for example, the Christian god is described in several places as omniscient such as in 1 John 3:20:

"If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

However, in other passages we see God being less than omniscient such as in Genesis 22:12:

“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Here we see a contradiction. Not only is the phrase "Now I know" out of step with an omnisicient being but also the very idea of an omniscient God performing a test in the first place when he would have to have already known the answer creates a contradiction in the narrative. Thus we have reason to doubt the claim that the Christian god is omnipotent. Bear in mind that this says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god, of a generic deity, just the particular flavour of god that Christians propound.

Yes, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of some kind of god which is why the honest answer is I don't know. However, either the existence of god is suggested by some evidence in our universe which can be tested using scientific means or there isn't any evidence to suppose that there is a god in the first place, other than inductive reasoning.

No, just no. The burden of proof for a claim rests with the one making the claim. It doesn't matter how many people believe the claim. For example, if you ever find yourself on jury service you may hear the judge explain the principle that "he who alleges must prove." You see, this is the way the world works. We assume claims to be rejected until they can be demonstrated with evidence. New drugs are assumed not to work and cannot be given to the general public until they have been through rigorous trials to prove that they do work. Your claim that a god exists is a positive claim and it is for you and all the others who share your belief to support this claim with evidence. Here's another video from qualiasoup to explain things in more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

It's a great post, fair dues to you - however I take issue with your last paragraph. This is not a court of law. For example, hearsay doesn't go down too well in a court of law either, but that doesn't mean hearsay cannot = truth. This is a Christian forum, therefore if atheists are going to put forward the theory that God does not exist ( as in recent statements referring to 'imaginary friends') then they should refer to something which backs that up.

Stop hiding behind the 'can't prove a negative' atheist cop out clause.

volchitsa · 03-03-2016 09:34AM

steamengine wrote: »

That's not correct, Christians outnumber atheists for a start.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

Clearly down through the centuries, more religions have evolved - to follow your reasoning every time a new religion came about, God sub-divided accordingly.

Ah, the Terry Pratchett theory of gods, I like that one! Only I don't think he meant intelligent people to take it seriously.

You're supposing that God exists. If he doesn't, he can't possibly subdivide, can he?

And you never got back to me on the question of how many other unlikely things that various people believe in you think may require disproval before one can safely assume we needn't believe in them? If you haven't disproved the existence of vampires, werewolves and witches (people are still being executed for witchcraft) does that mean you believe in them?

Or perhaps you're going to claim that you believe in every supernatural being you've ever heard of, plus those you haven't yet learned of. In which case I have a big bridge here for sale, great investment.

Delirium · 03-03-2016 09:37AM

steamengine wrote: »

It's a great post, fair dues to you - however I take issue with your last paragraph. This is not a court of law. For example, hearsay doesn't go down too well in a court of law either, but that doesn't mean hearsay cannot = truth. This is a Christian forum, therefore if atheists are going to put forward the theory that God does not exist ( as in recent statements referring to 'imaginary friends') then they should refer to something which backs that up.

Stop hiding behind the 'can't prove a negative' atheist cop out clause.

Do you contend that God exists? If yes, how did you establish this?

If people are to attempt to show an error in your claim, they need to know how you arrived at your conclusion.

steamengine · 03-03-2016 09:41AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Ah, the Terry Pratchett theory of gods, I like that one! Only I don't think he meant intelligent people to take it seriously.

You're supposing that God exists. If he doesn't, he can't possibly subdivide, can he?

And you never got back to me on the question of how many other unlikely things that various people believe in you think may require disproval before one can safely assume we needn't believe in them? If you haven't disproved the existence of vampires, werewolves and witches (people are still being executed for witchcraft) does that mean you believe in them?

Or perhaps you're going to claim that you believe in every supernatural being you've ever heard of, plus those you haven't yet learned of. In which case I have a big bridge here for sale, great investment.

I'll respond to 'serious' posts not facetious ones - and yours falls into that category IMO.

pauldla · 03-03-2016 10:02AM

steamengine wrote: »

It's a great post, fair dues to you - however I take issue with your last paragraph. This is not a court of law. For example, hearsay doesn't go down too well in a court of law either, but that doesn't mean hearsay cannot = truth. This is a Christian forum, therefore if atheists are going to put forward the theory that God does not exist ( as in recent statements referring to 'imaginary friends') then they should refer to something which backs that up.

Stop hiding behind the 'can't prove a negative' atheist cop out clause.

Is IS a great post, I agree. You seem to be missing the point that others are trying to make to you, though; there is nothing in atheism to 'back up'. Please allow me to break it down for you with an answer to two questions that reflect my views and, if I may be presumptuous, the views of others here who describe themselves as atheists.

Question 1: Is there a god?
Answer: I don't know.

Question 2: Do you have any belief in god?
Answer: No.

My answer to the first question makes me an agnostic: I have no knowledge of the existence of god. The second answer is the atheist answer. It's not a dodge or a cop-out, and I hope you can see that there is nothing here to prove; no assertion is being made. It is an absence of belief.

volchitsa · 03-03-2016 10:03AM

steamengine wrote: »

I'll respond to 'serious' posts not facetious ones - and yours falls into that category IMO.

So another cop out from you then. Grand so. :rolleyes:

In fact I wrote a very serious reply to you on the question some time back (when you'd copped out of answering already) and you just ignored it. Now you've declared that my posts are facetious - they aren't, it's just that you're clearly not someone to be taken seriously.

steamengine · 03-03-2016 10:17AM

Delirium wrote: »

Do you contend that God exists? If yes, how did you establish this?

If people are to attempt to show an error in your claim, they need to know how you arrived at your conclusion.

What does it matter who goes first ? The challenge by non-believers is there regardless of my personal beliefs ?

Yes I do contend God exists on the balance of probabilities, though I can't prove it scientifically. However, I am totally convinced through personal experience of another plane of existence other than our own. This refers to a series of paranormal experience, further backed off by reading around the subject of NDE's. I didn't always, straightforward faith didn't cut it for me - I was Christian/agnostic for a long time. That's it in summary.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments