• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does God exist?

We neither know nor dont know if God(s) exist.
What we can do is have beliefs and speculate but that's about it.
 
calamity said:
Higher powers? Sure. A creator? Absolutely. Those things could very well exist. But, gods? lol...first we would need to define one which cannot be debunked in five minutes or less.
Click to expand...
Well you failed to debunk even one in another thread in which we were discussing this very same question. In fact, I think you must have bowed out of that one entirely.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
...because being a godless planet is a goal worth aspiring to.
Click to expand...

Why? Woiuldn't it be better to worry about a compassionate planet, without worrying about if people believe in God or not?
 
calamity said:
why live reality believing in fictitious characters?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that the 'characters' are the most important thing about religion?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well you failed to debunk even one in another thread in which we were discussing this very same question. In fact, I think you must have bowed out of that one entirely.
Click to expand...

Which God did I not debunk, the one who created grass and fruit trees before he put up the sun?
 
calamity said:
Which God did I not debunk, the one who created grass and fruit trees before he put up the sun?
Click to expand...
I think you need to learn the differences among impossibility, improbability, possibility, plausibility, and probability. If anything you may have shown the improbability that if a supreme being existed, it would fit our human constructs. To "debunk" would imply removing it from the realm of possibility. Which not only haven't you done......you cannot do.
 
calamity said:
Higher powers? Sure. A creator? Absolutely. Those things could very well exist. But, gods? lol...first we would need to define one which cannot be debunked in five minutes or less.
Click to expand...

Calamity...as I said in the other thread...this is disappointing.

But, if you want to suggest that a "higher power' or a "creator" is not a "god"...and that a "god" can only be one of those things that humans have almost certainly dreamed up...

...you win.

But it is a very, very shallow victory.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I think you need to learn the differences among impossibility, improbability, possibility, plausibility, and probability. If anything you may have shown the improbability that if a supreme being existed, it would fit our human constructs. To "debunk" would imply removing it from the realm of possibility. Which not only haven't you done......you cannot do.
Click to expand...

Where I come from, a claim that a particular god flooded the world because he wanted a reset but let a family survive it on a boat that the god told their patriarch to build so that he could rescue mating pairs of all the earth's creatures would need to be consistent with the science of DNA and geology. If it is not, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to discount the existence of that particular god, as just one example.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Calamity...as I said in the other thread...this is disappointing.

But, if you want to suggest that a "higher power' or a "creator" is not a "god"...and that a "god" can only be one of those things that humans have almost certainly dreamed up...

...you win.

But it is a very, very shallow victory.
Click to expand...

It is a pedantic argument, no doubt. But, we have to start somewhere. And, insisting on a precise definition of these gods is critical, IMO. If people say they exist, it is imperative that we know exactly what it is that they insist exists.

I hope we agree that a creator and/or higher power does not necessarily have to be a god.
 
calamity said:
Where I come from, a claim that a particular god flooded the world because he wanted a reset but let a family survive it on a boat that the god told their patriarch to build so that he could rescue mating pairs of all the earth's creatures would need to be consistent with the science of DNA and geology. If it is not, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to discount the existence of that particular god, as just one example.
Click to expand...
This response did absolutely nothing to address my post that you just quoted. I feel as if I am arguing in circles with you. :lol:
 
FluffyNinja said:
This response did absolutely nothing to address my post that you just quoted. I feel as if I am arguing in circles with you. :lol:
Click to expand...

You are clearly not receptive to the argument that a claim about a particular god existing or not must be 100% consistent with the facts to be considered seriously.
 
calamity said:
You are clearly not receptive to the argument that a claim about a particular god existing or not must be 100% consistent with the facts to be considered seriously.
Click to expand...
You're quite determined to interject things into this particular discussion which reflect claims that I never made. I don't even recall mentioning "gods, or deities, or supreme beings" even once in any of my responses to you in this thread but please feel free to quote me or correct me if I did. I have simply criticized our approach, which you claim is reasonable and "scientific" one. I've simply pointed out a few flaws in your reasoning and you've done nothing but reply with "gods this....and gods that". Same old tiresome shtick. I think we're done here. its obvious to me whose approach is the more "closed-minded". Sigh.
 
FluffyNinja said:
You're quite determined to interject things into this particular discussion which reflect claims that I never made. I don't even recall mentioning "gods, or deities, or supreme beings" even once in any of my responses to you in this thread but please feel free to quote me or correct me if I did. I have simply criticized our approach, which you claim is reasonable and "scientific" one. I've simply pointed out a few flaws in your reasoning and you've done nothing but reply with "gods this....and gods that". Same old tiresome shtick. I think we're done here. its obvious to me whose approach is the more "closed-minded". Sigh.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that you specifically made any claims about gods. Any use of "you" by me here would have been the generic you.

My argument is also not a scientific attempt to show that higher powers or entities which may have created the universe and/or somehow control it do not exist. Those things may actually exist. I clearly do not know if they do or do not. I even venture to say I cannot know.

My argument is rather specific. It is basically an argument using logic and demanding consistency. Without exception all gods which have as of yet been put forth by men in literature or through oral tradition have attributes or have been given credit for accomplishments which have over time been proven to be false. Therefore, I conclude that they do not exist.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Perhaps.
Click to expand...

If I understand this one-word response correctly, I may be able to address it.

Claims about a given god define that god. If those claims are shown to be inconsistent, the counter argument is usually that those stories are allegory which should not be taken literally but are simply stories relaying a moral value or code to live by. In my mind, that is an obvious case of moving the goal posts.

How can a religion define their god by stories which even its followers agree are not true? Does that not make the definition of their god too fluid? You end up with what we have in monotheism: a god who did nothing tangible but is credited with having done everything. So, when evidence shows that God didn't really create Adam from dust and Eve from his rib, the goal-post gets moved. The new claim becomes that He simply created man in his image.

By the time they are done, their god is as ill defined as any higher power or potential creator of the universe, which I agree may or may not exist. In short, I feel comfortable discounting the existence of the aforementioned god only because they have not shown us what exactly this god is, as is obvious by the fluid nature of their definition of him.
 
Lovebug said:
Absolutely. No need for me trying to convince others it is so, or trying to argue with others about my faith. Why bother with this thread then?

Lots of threads by those who are saying God does not exist, again and again. I wonder why those, who are convinced God does not exist, are so obsessed about the topic? If God doesn't exist, why bother? Is the topic brought up, again and again ad nauseam, because non believers need to reassure themselves that God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

this thread--
jj+lol.gif

Why do religious people start threads about god in other subforums? It's as if they must somehow insert their religious beliefs into every discussion-- no matter how irrelevant and annoying it may be. Why do religious people feel the need to tell others that their life styles are "immoral." They cannot simply stick to facts.. it's always an argument which involves semantics and circular reasoning.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I think you need to learn the differences among impossibility, improbability, possibility, plausibility, and probability. If anything you may have shown the improbability that if a supreme being existed, it would fit our human constructs. To "debunk" would imply removing it from the realm of possibility. Which not only haven't you done......you cannot do.
Click to expand...

It is impossible for plants-let alone an entire planet--to exist before the sun. That is beyond the realm of possibility.

I do not argue, however, that it is impossible for Some Type of supreme being to exist. It is improbable, but not impossible. My issue with religion in general is that people treat it as if it is a proven fact, and act as if an atheist has the burden of proof. It is the believer that has that burden, not the Non believer.
 
Cally said:
It is impossible for plants-let alone an entire planet--to exist before the sun. That is beyond the realm of possibility.

I do not argue, however, that it is impossible for Some Type of supreme being to exist. It is improbable, but not impossible. My issue with religion in general is that people treat it as if it is a proven fact, and act as if an atheist has the burden of proof. It is the believer that has that burden, not the Non believer.
Click to expand...
Plants cant exist without our Sun? Hmm. More flawed logic and faulty science.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
I'm not arguing that you specifically made any claims about gods. Any use of "you" by me here would have been the generic you.

My argument is also not a scientific attempt to show that higher powers or entities which may have created the universe and/or somehow control it do not exist. Those things may actually exist. I clearly do not know if they do or do not. I even venture to say I cannot know.

My argument is rather specific. It is basically an argument using logic and demanding consistency. Without exception all gods which have as of yet been put forth by men in literature or through oral tradition have attributes or have been given credit for accomplishments which have over time been proven to be false. Therefore, I conclude that they do not exist.
Click to expand...

You're getting warmer.....I'll give you that.;)
 
FluffyNinja said:
Plants cant exist without our Sun? Hmm. More flawed logic and faulty science.
"post hoc ergo propter hoc"
Click to expand...

Err ... one the defining features of organisms in the kingdom plantae is that they synthesize nutrients by photosynthesis. That's not possible without abundant light energy.
 
brothern said:
Err ... one the defining features of organisms in the kingdom plantae is that they synthesize nutrients by photosynthesis. That's not possible without abundant light energy.
Click to expand...
Is it necessary that the source of light energy come from our star.....Sol? Can artificial light and heat be used?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Is it necessary that the source of light energy come from our star.....Sol? Can artificial light and heat be used?
Click to expand...
Sure it's theoretically not necessary if you had some alien species, but the Earth's plants evolved relative to the type of light that the sun emits. If our sun's light changed tomorrow, we'd face serious negative consequences. Like if some imaginary giant stuck a huge blue light filter between the Earth and the Sun that blocked all of the blue light shining on the Earth ... we'd see a mass extinction event of plants and then a mass extinction of us aerobic organisms as we ran out of O2. Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly in the blue portion and plants couldn't survive without it.
 
brothern said:
Sure it's theoretically not necessary if you had some alien species, but the Earth's plants evolved relative to the type of light that the sun emits. If our sun's light changed tomorrow, we'd face serious negative consequences. Like if some imaginary giant stuck a huge blue light filter between the Earth and the Sun that blocked all of the blue light shining on the Earth ... we'd see a mass extinction event of plants and then a mass extinction of us aerobic organisms as we ran out of O2. Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly in the blue portion and plants couldn't survive without it.
Click to expand...
Okay, I realize you paid attention in Botany 101. No need to prove that but I don't think you're really catching my drift here.
 
Lovebug said:
Absolutely. No need for me trying to convince others it is so, or trying to argue with others about my faith. Why bother with this thread then?

Lots of threads by those who are saying God does not exist, again and again. I wonder why those, who are convinced God does not exist, are so obsessed about the topic? If God doesn't exist, why bother? Is the topic brought up, again and again ad nauseam, because non believers need to reassure themselves that God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Ask a Cubs fan, probably no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom