• 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!

Proof of God

Jonsa said:
I know there is no proof of god because if there was, there would be no atheists.
Click to expand...

Sure there would. Lots of people deny things that have been proven. People don't base their beliefs on what can or can't be proven, least of all atheists. There's no proof either way- atheists disbelieve God as a matter of faith.
 
Grand Mal said:
Sure there would. Lots of people deny things that have been proven. People don't base their beliefs on what can or can't be proven, least of all atheists. There's no proof either way- atheists disbelieve God as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

Atheism is not a matter of faith. It doesn't require faith to not believe in any sort of imaginary things.
 
marke said:
Richturd Dawkins: "I don't know if aliens were involved in the origin of life on earth but I do know for damn sure that the petty, unjust, unforgiving, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, megalomaniacal god of heaven didn't have a damn thing to do with it, and that is a goddamm scientific fact."
Click to expand...

Didn't realize Richard Dawkins held such presuppositions pertaining to moral notions. Just curious, where did the aliens come from?
 
devildavid said:
Atheism is not a matter of faith. It doesn't require faith to not believe in any sort of imaginary things.
Click to expand...

It requires faith to believe that God is imaginary.
Voltaire, who is considered one of the most intelligent people ever and was very critical of Christianity, said, "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."
He also said, "The first clergyman is the first rascal who met the first fool."
And everyone knows what he thought would have to happen if God did not exist.

The point is, belief in God does not require religious faith but belief God doesn't exist is based on no evidence so it must require faith.
 
Grand Mal said:
The point is, belief in God does not require religious faith but belief God doesn't exist is based on no evidence so it must require faith.
Click to expand...
That's false.

Beliefs based on faith: require no evidence (and thus can also be made in spite of evidence to the contrary!)
Beliefs based on reason: require evidence/observation.

There by definition cannot be evidence in reality, of the imaginary.

There are plenty of definitions of god that defined God as imaginary.
I can do it right now.
Mog, a god, is an imaginary entity I just made up, that can bend space and time and has eyes made out of black holes.

According to you, it requires faith to believe this is imaginary. That's absurd. It's imaginary *by definition*.

Remember, the claim "gods is imaginary" is not a claim about reality, it's a claim about not-reality. This is a confusing point in the English language, no doubt, but there it is.

Either we're discussing reality, or not reality.
A claim about the not-real, is a claim about not-reality.
A claim about the real, is a claim about reality.

To say "there is no such thing as gods", is not an examination of the entire universe uncovering every atom, and declaring "no gods were found". It's a claim, in most cases, that the concept of god is imaginary...by definition.

The classic Christian god is defined as supernatural...aka...outside of nature.
That by definition, means outside of reality...not real. It's imaginary, by definition. Logic/reason...no faith required.
 
What one believes about God is rather irrelevant to His existence. If He doesn't exist then believing He does won't matter. If He does exist, not believing He does will have no effect whatsoever on this fact. The only thing that can be affected by this question is what may happen if God exists and we deny His existence. Would it make any sense for the creator of the universe to exist and yet not give His creation proof of His existence? Would that in any sense be logical? I contend that it would not and, therefore, if God exists He would make His existence manifest. That leaves us to ponder the proofs of God's existence if we allow for the possibility that He does exist, which I submit we must do.
 
Angel said:
We're talking about different things here. I'm talking about the logical existence of God; you're talking about the many stories about the nature of God.
Click to expand...

If the above is true, then why do you apply the term "God" which implies a living being or "some one" rather than the term "something" which would not exclude a God or Gods?
Was the universe in which we are living created with or without intent?
How can a cause without a cause be explained logically?
 
Mach said:
That's false.

Beliefs based on faith: require no evidence (and thus can also be made in spite of evidence to the contrary!)
Beliefs based on reason: require evidence/observation.

There by definition cannot be evidence in reality, of the imaginary.

There are plenty of definitions of god that defined God as imaginary.
I can do it right now.
Mog, a god, is an imaginary entity I just made up, that can bend space and time and has eyes made out of black holes.

According to you, it requires faith to believe this is imaginary. That's absurd. It's imaginary *by definition*.

Remember, the claim "gods is imaginary" is not a claim about reality, it's a claim about not-reality. This is a confusing point in the English language, no doubt, but there it is.

Either we're discussing reality, or not reality.
A claim about the not-real, is a claim about not-reality.
A claim about the real, is a claim about reality.

To say "there is no such thing as gods", is not an examination of the entire universe uncovering every atom, and declaring "no gods were found". It's a claim, in most cases, that the concept of god is imaginary...by definition.

The classic Christian god is defined as supernatural...aka...outside of nature.
That by definition, means outside of reality...not real. It's imaginary, by definition. Logic/reason...no faith required.
Click to expand...

God is outside the bounds of the physical laws governing us because He created those laws. That is the Christian position. That in no way makes God imaginary. In fact, any God who was bound by the physical limitations we experience would hardly be worthy of the name.
 
veritas1 said:
God is outside the bounds of the physical laws governing us because He created those laws. That is the Christian position. That in no way makes God imaginary. In fact, any God who was bound by the physical limitations we experience would hardly be worthy of the name.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, just because it's the Christian position doesn't make God real either. What evidence do you have that the Christian position is actually real? Can you do it with empirical evidence, rather than 'arguments' that are full of unsupported assumptions and logical fallacies?
 
Grand Mal said:
Sure there would. Lots of people deny things that have been proven. People don't base their beliefs on what can or can't be proven, least of all atheists. There's no proof either way- atheists disbelieve God as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

Point taken. the trap of speaking generally.

Not sure faith can be defined a belief in a negative hypothesis due to an absence of evidence.
 
RAMOSS said:
On the other hand, just because it's the Christian position doesn't make God real either. What evidence do you have that the Christian position is actually real?
Click to expand...

The only evidence I can offer is Christ's life, death and resurrection and the veracity of the accounts of those events. I believe there are very good reasons to believe they are true but do not have absolute proof. That is faith. Those who demand absolute proof will be disappointed unless and until God appears but only believing then requires no faith, yet that is what God, at least the Christian God, demands.
 
veritas1 said:
God is outside the bounds of the physical laws governing us because He created those laws. That is the Christian position. That in no way makes God imaginary. In fact, any God who was bound by the physical limitations we experience would hardly be worthy of the name.
Click to expand...

Christianity is irrelevant to God.
Uh, it might be more accurate to say Christianity is immaterial or unnecessary to God. God doesn't need Christians and Christians don't need God.
There's nothing an atheist wants more than to have a discussion of God devolve into Biblical scripture. Christianity and the Bible are just diversions. They take the attention of the discussion away from God.
 
veritas1 said:
The only evidence I can offer is Christ's life, death and resurrection and the veracity of the accounts of those events. I believe there are very good reasons to believe they are true but do not have absolute proof. That is faith. Those who demand absolute proof will be disappointed unless and until God appears but only believing then requires no faith, yet that is what God, at least the Christian God, demands.
Click to expand...

And??? How does that show anything more than evidence of belief at best?
 
Grand Mal said:
Christianity is irrelevant to God.
Uh, it might be more accurate to say Christianity is immaterial or unnecessary to God. God doesn't need Christians and Christians don't need God.
There's nothing an atheist wants more than to have a discussion of God devolve into Biblical scripture. Christianity and the Bible are just diversions. They take the attention of the discussion away from God.
Click to expand...

My answer was to a poster who referenced my Christian faith.
 
veritas1 said:
It doesn't. I never claimed it did. Like I said, that is faith.
Click to expand...

Then, you disagree with the OP, and there is no 'proof' of God.
 
Mach said:
That's false.

Beliefs based on faith: require no evidence (and thus can also be made in spite of evidence to the contrary!)
Beliefs based on reason: require evidence/observation.

There by definition cannot be evidence in reality, of the imaginary.

There are plenty of definitions of god that defined God as imaginary.
I can do it right now.
Mog, a god, is an imaginary entity I just made up, that can bend space and time and has eyes made out of black holes.

According to you, it requires faith to believe this is imaginary. That's absurd. It's imaginary *by definition*.

Remember, the claim "gods is imaginary" is not a claim about reality, it's a claim about not-reality. This is a confusing point in the English language, no doubt, but there it is.

Either we're discussing reality, or not reality.
A claim about the not-real, is a claim about not-reality.
A claim about the real, is a claim about reality.

To say "there is no such thing as gods", is not an examination of the entire universe uncovering every atom, and declaring "no gods were found". It's a claim, in most cases, that the concept of god is imaginary...by definition.

The classic Christian god is defined as supernatural...aka...outside of nature.
That by definition, means outside of reality...not real. It's imaginary, by definition. Logic/reason...no faith required.
Click to expand...

By your definitions (and mine) the Big Bang is a matter of faith. It's nothing more than an attempt to explain observed phenomena and has no basis in logic.
I like creation myths. I like the Inuit one where a woman sits beside a hole in the ground with a fishing pole and pulls up each of all the animals in the world, tells them their name and sends them on their way. The creation myth in the Bible is a good one. I interpret it to mean that all our problems began when we took up agriculture. And the Big Bang theory is just the creation myth favoured by science.
If you want to name God 'Mog' and give Him powers you like a God to have that's up to you but there's no faith involved. You know Mog is imaginary because you imagined him. I know Mog is imaginary because you told me so. But what tells you God is imaginary? You didn't conjure Him up out of nothing and you don't know who did. You don't know that God was imagined at all, by anyone. You have to admit that God, in whatever form, has been with us since forever, since as far back as we can see. In fact, it requires faith to deny something we've always known.
 
Grand Mal said:
By your definitions (and mine) the Big Bang is a matter of faith. It's nothing more than an attempt to explain observed phenomena and has no basis in logic.
I like creation myths. I like the Inuit one where a woman sits beside a hole in the ground with a fishing pole and pulls up each of all the animals in the world, tells them their name and sends them on their way. The creation myth in the Bible is a good one. I interpret it to mean that all our problems began when we took up agriculture. And the Big Bang theory is just the creation myth favoured by science.
If you want to name God 'Mog' and give Him powers you like a God to have that's up to you but there's no faith involved. You know Mog is imaginary because you imagined him. I know Mog is imaginary because you told me so. But what tells you God is imaginary? You didn't conjure Him up out of nothing and you don't know who did. You don't know that God was imagined at all, by anyone. You have to admit that God, in whatever form, has been with us since forever, since as far back as we can see. In fact, it requires faith to deny something we've always known.
Click to expand...

In fact, it requires faith to deny something we've always (known?).
Or perhaps just always believed? Because no one actually knew any answers before we began asking questions.
 
Grand Mal said:
By your definitions (and mine) the Big Bang is a matter of faith. It's nothing more than an attempt to explain observed phenomena and has no basis in logic.
I like creation myths. I like the Inuit one where a woman sits beside a hole in the ground with a fishing pole and pulls up each of all the animals in the world, tells them their name and sends them on their way. The creation myth in the Bible is a good one. I interpret it to mean that all our problems began when we took up agriculture. And the Big Bang theory is just the creation myth favoured by science.
If you want to name God 'Mog' and give Him powers you like a God to have that's up to you but there's no faith involved. You know Mog is imaginary because you imagined him. I know Mog is imaginary because you told me so. But what tells you God is imaginary? You didn't conjure Him up out of nothing and you don't know who did. You don't know that God was imagined at all, by anyone. You have to admit that God, in whatever form, has been with us since forever, since as far back as we can see. In fact, it requires faith to deny something we've always known.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. The 'observed phenomena' makes it more than just faith. The logic comes in to explain the phenomena. The concept was able to make predictions about what would be discovered if the concept was true, and what was observed matched the predictions and model. The predictions of the model matching the later observations makes it far far more than 'just faith.'
 
Grand Mal said:
Christianity is irrelevant to God.
Uh, it might be more accurate to say Christianity is immaterial or unnecessary to God. God doesn't need Christians and Christians don't need God.
There's nothing an atheist wants more than to have a discussion of God devolve into Biblical scripture. Christianity and the Bible are just diversions. They take the attention of the discussion away from God.
Click to expand...

What is the motive for belief in a God.
 
Jonsa said:
There is no maybe about the existence of atheists. Life isn't a foxhole in any but the most obscure metaphorical sense.

And I definitely know that to be true, and have known for quite some time.
Click to expand...
Prove it. (I'm talking your language here, so there's no misunderstanding, you understand.) Prove there are atheists.
 
Angel said:
Prove it. (I'm talking your language here, so there's no misunderstanding, you understand.) Prove there are atheists.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I believe in agnostics.
 
devildavid said:
I asked two questions. You failed to see that fact. The error is all yours. And still no viable answers.
Click to expand...
You made a statement and asked a question. Then you asked another question, which you yourself said was unrelated to the earlier question.
Accordingly, in my reply to your post I separated your post into two parts.
My point about the first part was that your question belies your statement. And it does.
You've since been trying to distract from the fact that I once again caught you out in a self-contradiction by this obvious nonsense about the number of questions.
Your bad faith once again to the fore, devildavid.
 
Individual said:
If the above is true, then why do you apply the term "God" which implies a living being or "some one" rather than the term "something" which would not exclude a God or Gods?
Was the universe in which we are living created with or without intent?
How can a cause without a cause be explained logically?
Click to expand...
See how interesting a conversation between us could have been?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom