• 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

devildavid said:
There are factual statements. There are things that are true. Neither one has anything to do with the concept of truth. It was Its Just Me who made a distinction between facts and truth yet you didn't question him or disagree with the distinction. If a fact is true, does it mean it is a truth?
Click to expand...

So now you're saying "true" has nothing to do with "truth" I wonder if you're telling the truth though?

I guess you aren't though because as you said there's no such thing as truth, but is that true?

This is a new low for atheism, stooping to this level is something I've never seen anyone resort to in almost 30 years of debating this.

David how can you ever tell us the truth if there's no such thing as truth?

Perhaps this is an example of "word games" that you seem to know so much about.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I refuse to answer such questions until I know what you mean, that's why I asked you the questions I did, so until you answer I'm afraid I have no answers for you.

Are you saying that explanation 2) is always impossible? every time we search for X and can't find it we can reliably conclude that in fact X does not exist? are you really actually saying that??? will you say that next time you lose your car keys?

If you refuse to answer with a simple yes or no, we're done, understand?
Click to expand...


I don't control you, so if you "refuse to answer questions" or "we're done" because I don't respond to your threat, then that is a reflection on you, not on me, and I have no power over it. That doesn't mean, of course, that I won't continue to critique your inputs, it will only mean that you either hide from them or you don't respond to them. In either case, it does not affect me, per se.

Anyway, you often bring mathematics into your arguments, and so I naturally assumed that your use of the term "X", which is so common in mathematics, was being used in that respect in which case, of course, my two questions naturally follow.

But it looks like that is not the case. You are evidently using a term commonly used in math mixed in with a question on a reality-based basis about losing keys along with an implication of theology. In other words, it's just a mishmash that upon careful inspection amounts to basically nothing.
My questions were based on math, but if that was not your intent in using the term "X", then answer any way that you want.
Regards, nemesis
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
So now you're saying "true" has nothing to do with "truth" I wonder if you're telling the truth though?

I guess you aren't though because as you said there's no such thing as truth, but is that true?

This is a new low for atheism, stooping to this level is something I've never seen anyone resort to in almost 30 years of debating this.

David how can you ever tell us the truth if there's no such thing as truth?

Perhaps this is an example of "word games" that you seem to know so much about.
Click to expand...

Please do not use loaded terms such as "stoop to this level". They have no merit in reasoned debate.
Thank you in advance.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Pascal's wager. Sorry, but I have considered it, and for some time and owing to such a concept being a primitive and man made construct, and coupled with the dearth of evidence for the existence of such a being, I see no good reason to even consider such stories to have any validity.
Click to expand...

This. I would imagine any rational deity would give you a second chance, third, etc... to come to some realization of truth, if that truth was objective. Why dismiss you to an eternity of hell, for reasonably believing that it does not exist, given the limited senses and rational facilities the deity provided? What about sociopaths who don't have such facilities? That's pretty harsh and irrational for a rational, let alone benevolent, deity.
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
Please do not use loaded terms such as "stoop to this level". They have no merit in reasoned debate.
Click to expand...

When someone says to me they are being truthful when they say there's no such thing as truth, then we are no longer having a reasoned debate.

We've moved to straitjacketville, David will find many people there who share his views, here a few of them.

davejacket.jpg

This is what becomes of many atheists after their minds begin to fragment from going around in self referential recursive self contradictory loops.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Pascal's wager. Sorry, but I have considered it, and for some time and owing to such a concept being a primitive and man made construct, and coupled with the dearth of evidence for the existence of such a being, I see no good reason to even consider such stories to have any validity.
Click to expand...

Pascal's wager implies belief. I am simply investigating.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
When someone says to me they are being truthful when they say there's no such thing as truth, then we are no longer having a reasoned debate.

We've moved to straitjacketville, David will find many people there who share his views, here a few of them.

View attachment 67291095

Please do not use terms like "straitjacketville" or make claims of "self referential recursive self contradictory loops". They do not contribute to the topic at hand. Please stay on the topic, per se.

This is what becomes of many atheists after their minds begin to fragment from going around in self referential recursive self contradictory loops.
Click to expand...

Please do not use terms like "straitjacketville" or make claims of "self referential recursive self contradictory loops". They do not contribute to the topic at hand. Please stay on the topic, per se.
 
Triton said:
Pascal's wager implies belief. I am simply investigating.
Click to expand...

It does not, however, imply the correctness of those beliefs. The very term "belief" implies that it may or may not be true. Belief is the easiest thing in the world. Anybody can believe anything at all with or without the least bit of evidence.
 
watsup said:
Please do not use terms like "straitjacketville" or make claims of "self referential recursive self contradictory loops". They do not contribute to the topic at hand. Please stay on the topic, per se.
Click to expand...

I'll use whatever terms I choose and express myself any-damn-way I like within the bounds of the forum's rules so you'd better start getting used to it.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I'll use whatever terms I choose and express myself any-damn-way I like within the bounds of the forums rules so you'd better start getting used to it.
Click to expand...


That's fine. All that I am pointing out is that your description of others does not contribute in any way to the forward movement of reasoned debate. But you certainly have the freedom to do so. "It's a free country", as they say.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I'll use whatever terms I choose and express myself any-damn-way I like within the bounds of the forum's rules so you'd better start getting used to it.
Click to expand...
From the person who whines that any comment on his bad behavior is an 'ad hominem'. New day, same classic theistic double standards.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
NWO_Spook said:
You asked me to consider it out of fear of damnation [para.], and I dismissed it owing to the aforementioned comparison to Pascal's wager.
Click to expand...
Feel free to do so. I interpreted your question as open ended, and as it pertained to motivation, which is often personal, I answered personally. It is of course fine that then your motivation, or lack thereof, is also personal.
 
Triton said:
Feel free to do so. I interpreted your question as open ended, and as it pertained to motivation, which is often personal, I answered personally. It is of course fine that then your motivation, or lack thereof, is also personal.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll wait for credible evidence before I give any credence to such a primitive construct.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Fair enough. I'll wait for credible evidence before I give any credence to such a primitive construct.
Click to expand...

What would you regard as evidence? what criteria would an observation have to meet for you to regard it as evidence?
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
What would you regard as evidence? what criteria would an observation have to meet for you to regard it as evidence?
Click to expand...

That is always an unfair and even nonsensical question no matter how often it is asked. A person obviously cannot perceive the reliability of any evidence u til it is offered. Imagine a lawyer intimating that the jury must first establish criteria before he can present evidence. He would be laughed out of the courtroom.
 
watsup said:
That is always an unfair and even nonsensical question no matter how often it is asked. A person obviously cannot perceive the reliability of any evidence u til it is offered. Imagine a lawyer intimating that the jury must first establish criteria before he can present evidence. He would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...
What is true and what is regarded as true by individuals are generally not necessarily the same. For example, I certainly regard it as true that the ISS exists, but I have never actually tried to locate it through a telescope. So the evidence which I accept as sufficient for regarding the proposition that "the ISS is a real space station orbiting Earth" as true is the countless number of pictures and videos taken of it and from it in conjunction with the fact that many other people claim to think it exists based on this data.

I suppose a less convoluted way of phrasing Sherlock's question would be: What kind of data would be required in order to reasonably confirm the existence of God?
 
Triton said:
What is true and what is regarded as true by individuals are generally not necessarily the same. For example, I certainly regard it as true that the ISS exists, but I have never actually tried to locate it through a telescope. So the evidence which I accept as sufficient for regarding the proposition that "the ISS is a real space station orbiting Earth" as true is the countless number of pictures and videos taken of it and from it in conjunction with the fact that many other people claim to think it exists based on this data.

I suppose a less convoluted way of phrasing Sherlock's question would be: What kind of data would be required in order to reasonably confirm the existence of God?
Click to expand...
The ISS seems an interesting example since you can see it with your naked eye, and download free apps that will help you locate it in the sky and track its movements. And of course, you are welcome to magnify the image if you desire. I suppose one might ask why, if believing in a god, and at least according to some, the right god(s), is so important, why should we lower our standards of evidence compared to something relatively trivial like the ISS? It bespeaks a certain lack of concern about whether the believer's god beliefs are even true to advocate a lower standard of evidence for a god than just about anything else we believe in.

Even something I cannot see, like radioactive decay or virtual particles, are things where I can learn about the reasons physicists believe in them, the testable predictions made on the basis of the theory, and so on. And like grabbing a telescope and pointing it at the ISS, in theory I could run those tests myself if I was still particularly skeptical. (In practice, certain tests may be beyond my present budget). That is to say the reasons provided are much more impressive than appeals to tradition or authority (either of this or that holy person or this or that holy book) or popularity or nothing but logic games that are generally circular. Furthermore, things like radioactive decay and virtual particles
are things I can accept provisionally until such a time as a better model that makes better testable predictions comes along. These theories do not demand my obedience or threaten me with eternal torture for non-conformity or try to guilt me into giving someone a tenth of my income. As an added bonus.

Of course, some number of theists will tell me some test I can perform to determine if there is a god, such as 'praying for wisdom'. But they exhibit amazing confirmation bias (count the hits; ignore the misses) when these tests fail, and are quick with excuses for why the tests always fail, usually blaming me. This renders the tests unfalsifiable and vacuous.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
watsup said:
That is always an unfair and even nonsensical question no matter how often it is asked. A person obviously cannot perceive the reliability of any evidence u til it is offered. Imagine a lawyer intimating that the jury must first establish criteria before he can present evidence. He would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...

One would have that their god should know what evidence to present. Funnily enough, this abstract is rather conspicuous by its absence.
 
DarthPedant said:
From the person who whines that any comment on his bad behavior is an 'ad hominem'. New day, same classic theistic double standards.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

All believers are hypocrites.
 
Why doesn't god manifest himself all over the place as he did in the Old Testament? That would be convincing.
 
zyzygy said:
Why doesn't god manifest himself all over the place as he did in the Old Testament? That would be convincing.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if this god was serious about letting us know about his magnificence, then why did he limit his exposure to a single nation thousands of years ago? He's been awfully quiet lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom