• 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!

God probably exists.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Eye said:
God probably exists for these reasons...

There is no legitimate reason for believing that anything exits beyond thought. In fact Occam inclines us to discard that which adds nothing of use , eg materialism. The idea of materialism (ie, mind independence) serves no purpose other than to deny the existence of God...it serves no other purpose.

So if we naturally (due to Occam's advice) drop materialism (ie. mind independence) we come to the conclusion that the world is a world of thought .

You can naturally descend into solipsism with such a view of reality...the trouble with that is that most of us (ie , the sane ones) feel that we are not all that there is to know...therefore other things (like mathematical theorems) exist outside of us .

If we accept that mind independence can not exist but that other things exist outside of ourselves, then it stands to reason that we exist in an external non-material reality. That external reality must be the product of another mind (since mind independence does not exist).

We exist in another mind (God) much in the same way that the Chrome browser can exist within Windows 10 .Separate but dependent.
Click to expand...

Using that razor to the extreme, I am all that exists and the all the rest of you all in the world are just bit players on my stage.
 
Big Eye said:
That's not for me to know. My "job" is to know where I am, and to what I owe thanks for my existence.

If you went to another planet and found some intelligent constructions there, would it be right for me to expect you to explain the origins and reason for the civilisation that built them?
Click to expand...

It's also not for you to speculate where the chain stops. It could stop before "god" or after. We are not equipped to opine on which is more "probable."
 
I haven't got time to respond to each individual , so I'll try to cover some of the points raised.

1, I am not trying to push religion or God, mine is a philosophical argument that has led me to believe there may well be an all embracing consciousness (God) , but I don't make any specific statements about what such a God wants from us.

2, It seems to me that materialism (mind independence) has had its day. It contributes nothing and is merely a reflection of the idea that there is no God...so in effect it's a political idea rather than a philosophically productive one.( It suits some regimes to insist that they are the arbiters of right and wrong, ie, there is no God).

3, People point out that a world constructed from mind alone requires nothing separate from the thinker itself. I think this is a false idea, and here is why...

If I am all that exists then it stands to reason that I am deceiving myself since it certainly doesn't feel like I have invented Chess (I am merely using chess as an example). So in such a world I am a creator that is not aware that he is creating. If I am not aware of such output from my own mind why should I trust anything else that my mind tells me...such as I am all that exists ?

It follows that since I actually do believe that my mind is limited , that I haven't unknowingly invented Chess, that there must be other conscious entities besides me doing these things. I know that doesn't prove that I am not alone but it does make sense to accept that there are other entities insofar as it is an explanation for the existence of things like chess...because I really don't think my mind invented it and why would my mind want to deceive me about it?

So I fully accept that there are other minds though I can't prove it. It is being entirely reasonable to assume the existence of other minds. If reality itself is mind dependent , but not dependent upon me, then it follows that reality is constructed by a greater mind than mine...God probably exists.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Speaking of Russell perhaps you might want to listen to him debate this very thing?

I personally did not notice the argument being described as absurd.
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the Stanford philosophy link that I posted?

Critiques of ontological arguments begin with Gaunilo, a contemporary of St. Anselm. Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real predicate. However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. This helps to explain why ontological arguments have fascinated philosophers for almost a thousand years.
Click to expand...

An apologetic circular argument that god exists doesn't in any way prove it to be true, no matter how strong that you claim that your faith is. Faith and belief are not empirical evidence that can be tested and verified by someone who is not a believer.

Sherlock Holmes said:
Who gets to decide what is and is not "factual" evidence?
Click to expand...

Can it be both falsified and then verified by someone who is not a believer too be equally true?
 
Big Eye said:
God probably exists for these reasons...

There is no legitimate reason for believing that anything exits beyond thought. In fact Occam inclines us to discard that which adds nothing of use , eg materialism. The idea of materialism (ie, mind independence) serves no purpose other than to deny the existence of God...it serves no other purpose.

So if we naturally (due to Occam's advice) drop materialism (ie. mind independence) we come to the conclusion that the world is a world of thought .

You can naturally descend into solipsism with such a view of reality...the trouble with that is that most of us (ie , the sane ones) feel that we are not all that there is to know...therefore other things (like mathematical theorems) exist outside of us .

If we accept that mind independence can not exist but that other things exist outside of ourselves, then it stands to reason that we exist in an external non-material reality. That external reality must be the product of another mind (since mind independence does not exist).

We exist in another mind (God) much in the same way that the Chrome browser can exist within Windows 10 .Separate but dependent.
Click to expand...

That is the same evidence to say the easter bunny probably exists
 
Lisa said:
Did you bother to read the Stanford philosophy link that I posted?
Click to expand...

It links to an article about ontological arguments, I've read within that chapter several times.

Lisa said:
An apologetic circular argument that god exists doesn't in any way prove it to be true, no matter how strong that you claim that your faith is.
Click to expand...

That depends upon what we define as proof and that is subjective with the probable exception of mathematics.

Lisa said:
Faith and belief are not empirical evidence that can be tested and verified by someone who is not a believer.
Click to expand...

Neither is faith in empiricism.

Lisa said:
Can it be both falsified and then verified by someone who is not a believer too be equally true?
Click to expand...

Falsifiability isn't useful here, consider the proposition "You continue to perceive after death" how could you falsify such a proposition?
 
Elvira said:
Surprise...unlike humans, God is perfect...He has righteous integrity...He has set high standards for Himself that He cannot/will not break...He does not destroy just because He can, but He does/will destroy all those who oppose Him/His eternal purpose for mankind...

"The Rock, perfect is his activity,
For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness who is never unjust;
Righteous and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4
Click to expand...

Allowing the existence of Satan and Smallpox is objectively not good, and therefore not perfect. Claim rejected.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
It links to an article about ontological arguments, I've read within that chapter several times.



That depends upon what we define as proof and that is subjective with the probable exception of mathematics.



Neither is faith in empiricism.



Falsifiability isn't useful here, consider the proposition "You continue to perceive after death" how could you falsify such a proposition?
Click to expand...

Where is the empirical evidence of a sentient creator that does not rely on faith and belief to support? What evidence of a creator can be tested and supported by someone who is not a believer?

God doesn't exist because of your belief or the fact that there are millions/billions of people who make equally emotional arguments. You are making a positive claim that God exists, so you need to prove that your claim is true with emotional facts or we revert to the idea that a god does not exist until there is sufficient evidence to reexamine the claim. Your empty threats that I will burn in her are not proof of a creator and neither is the bible because it was written by man and didnt drop out of the sky to be discovered on Mt Sinai.
 
Material reality is the extension of energy in a less excited state. Dark energy (time/space) in the universe seems to be in a state of continuous expansion, maybe from another 'hidden' dimension. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions, and force fields, whose quanta are bosons. All these fields have zero-point energy. If the universe is basically 'energy' influx, then ipso facto > rutabaga.
 
Lisa said:
Where is the empirical evidence of a sentient creator that does not rely on faith and belief to support? What evidence of a creator can be tested and supported by someone who is not a believer?
Click to expand...

Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?

Of course the answer is yes, I say that based on my own experiences of life.

So how can you attach importance to test-ability, empiricism when we might be dealing with a real truth that is not subject this kind of analysis?

Lisa said:
God doesn't exist because of your belief or the fact that there are millions/billions of people who make equally emotional arguments. You are making a positive claim that God exists, so you need to prove that your claim is true with emotional facts or we revert to the idea that a god does not exist until there is sufficient evidence to reexamine the claim.
Click to expand...

God exists - I infer this based on observation of the world, the universe, my conviction that God exits is most certainly not the result of some emotional state.

Lisa said:
Your empty threats that I will burn in her are not proof of a creator and neither is the bible because it was written by man and didnt drop out of the sky to be discovered on Mt Sinai.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I do not think I threatened you nor did I even mention "bible" - what are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?

Of course the answer is yes, I say that based on my own experiences of life.

So how can you attach importance to test-ability, empiricism when we might be dealing with a real truth that is not subject this kind of analysis?



God exists - I infer this based on observation of the world, the universe, my conviction that God exits is most certainly not the result of some emotional state.



I'm sorry, I do not think I threatened you nor did I even mention "bible" - what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Of course something can be true and yet not provable/fact...;)
 
Elvira said:
Of course something can be true and yet not provable/fact...;)
Click to expand...

But how does one determine thus without a mechanism to do so? Faith is an unreliable method of determining the truth, as there is no mechanism to confirm a belief.
 
Lisa said:
Where is the empirical evidence of a sentient creator that does not rely on faith and belief to support? What evidence of a creator can be tested and supported by someone who is not a believer?

God doesn't exist because of your belief or the fact that there are millions/billions of people who make equally emotional arguments. You are making a positive claim that God exists, so you need to prove that your claim is true with emotional facts or we revert to the idea that a god does not exist until there is sufficient evidence to reexamine the claim. Your empty threats that I will burn in her are not proof of a creator and neither is the bible because it was written by man and didnt drop out of the sky to be discovered on Mt Sinai.
Click to expand...


Superb, Lisa!
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?

Of course the answer is yes, I say that based on my own experiences of life.

So how can you attach importance to test-ability, empiricism when we might be dealing with a real truth that is not subject this kind of analysis?



God exists - I infer this based on observation of the world, the universe, my conviction that God exits is most certainly not the result of some emotional state.



I'm sorry, I do not think I threatened you nor did I even mention "bible" - what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

How can it be empirically true if it cannot be proven?

Your life experiences depend wholly on your own personality and we know that what we expence is not always truthful. Your emotional arguments are wearing very thin and I'm tired of the pleading religious apologetics.

Where is the empirical evidence that a sentient creator exists?
 
Lisa said:
How can it be empirically true if it cannot be proven?

Your life experiences depend wholly on your own personality and we know that what we expence is not always truthful. Your emotional arguments are wearing very thin and I'm tired of the pleading religious apologetics.

Where is the empirical evidence that a sentient creator exists?
Click to expand...

Empirical...you toss that word around a lot...do you even know what it means? I think not...
 
Lisa said:
How can it be empirically true if it cannot be proven?
Click to expand...

It cannot and I did not ever say that it could, but I did ask (and you did not answer): "Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?"

Are you willing to take a stab at answering?

Lisa said:
Your life experiences depend wholly on your own personality and we know that what we expence is not always truthful.
Click to expand...

Not at all, my experiences largely depend on the world around me, of course how I evaluate them does to an extent depend on my prevailing beliefs, this is true for all of us.

Tell me though, how can an experience not be truthful?

Lisa said:
Your emotional arguments are wearing very thin and I'm tired of the pleading religious apologetics.
Click to expand...

I have not mentioned religion nor have I posted an emotional argument, you're being dishonest when you say that.

Lisa said:
Where is the empirical evidence that a sentient creator exists?
Click to expand...

Its all around you, just open your eyes and look.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
Not at all, my experiences largely depend on the world around me, of course how I evaluate them does to an extent depend on my prevailing beliefs, this is true for all of us.

Tell me though, how can an experience not be truthful?



I have not mentioned religion nor have I posted an emotional argument, you're being dishonest when you say that.



Its all around you, just open your eyes and look.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that people who are delusional, schizophrenic actually experience what they are claiming to or are those disorders in their brain and aren't really King Arthur or Caeser? I know for a fact that my dream last night wasnt real but it seemed very real at the time.

Dawkins-Faith-Meme.jpg


Your entire line of arguing is emotional.
 
Elvira said:
Empirical...you toss that word around a lot...do you even know what it means? I think not...
Click to expand...

You and I have had this discussion before and it didn't go well for you. This is why I have your hilariously illogical reply recorded in my signature line. Do you sincerely want to revisit that discussion? :lol:

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
Click to expand...

Empirical | Definition of Empirical by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Empirical
 
Lisa said:
You and I have had this discussion before and it didn't go well for you. This is why I have your hilariously illogical reply recorded in my signature line. Do you sincerely want to revisit that discussion? :lol:



Empirical | Definition of Empirical by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of Empirical
Click to expand...

lol...and you failed...get a clue...my experience is not your experience...in case you don't know what you're talking about, which you don't...the definition of empirical is something that is based solely on experiment or experience...:roll:
 
Lisa said:
Are you saying that people who are delusional, schizophrenic actually experience what they are claiming to or are those disorders in their brain and aren't really King Arthur or Caeser? I know for a fact that my dream last night wasnt real but it seemed very real at the time.

Your entire line of arguing is emotional.
Click to expand...

You could at least answer my question which I've now asked three time: "Can something be true yet not provable? can something occur yet not be repeatable?"

Lets at least get this bit over with before we start jumping around and making accusations about being deluded and emotional, is this really asking too much?
 
Last edited:
The whole title of this thread is false to begin with. If the evidence in support of a claim is virtually nil, it 'probably' would not be true.
It might have been more aptly titled, "God, could conceivably exist," or "God, could possibly exist."

I recall the quote, it is through faith you are saved, not works. So why even try to justify it logically. Faith is between you and whatever entity you deem to personally believe.
 
A god that is unseen and does not appear to interact with the physical world is virtually indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom