• 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.

I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

Frank Apisa said:
If you arbitrarily want to assign "childish" to a term like "gods"...you are calling some of the finest minds that have ever existed "childish"...because some of the finest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have discussed (and been on both sides) of the question, "Do gods exist?"
For me...I KNOW it is POSSIBLE gods exist...just as it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...

Yet using your reasoning you must admit that it's possible that Calamity is the finest mind that has ever lived.
 
Mach said:
Why not refrain from obvious logical fallacy, and simply define the word?

Notice that if you cannot/will not, you cannot make a reasoned argument. Which is what calamity, freedom, and I, are informing you of

You may think we're trying to be tricky, but it's the opposite. We're trying to let you be CLEAR, so you can clearly see why it's wrong.
You can change your mind, you are not stuck to one definition, but you have to start somewhere.
Pick two common, wikipedia definitions, the common christian god, and one of your own custom crafting. BOTH can be evaluated independently.
If you want to tweak them after, you can! No one will accuse you of semantic tricks IF you do it up front!

Obviously we have the patience to beat a dead horse, but let's use that patience in moving the arguments FORWARD, rather than you simply refusing to define words you then proceed to use.
Click to expand...

Hi again, Mach. Sorry you were not willing to acknowledge that first greeting.

Anyway...as I said. Some of the finest minds ever have discussed and debated both sides of this question of the existence of gods...and not had anywhere near the trouble you and Calamity seem to be having with the word.

Despite that...I have on several occasions actually defined what I am talking about when I use the word "god"...and all you guys do is to pretend that I haven't. I suspect you do not want to deal with what I deem to be a god...because you realize that what I have been saying from the beginning...is right on the numbers.

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was created (whether by the Big Bang or otherwise)...then the being that created it (or caused it to be created) is what I deem to be a GOD.

If that being was created...whatever created it, I also deem to be a GOD. And if that was created...whatever created it, also...and continuing back through infinity.

If this thing we humans call the universe was not created...if the Big Bang was simply a natural occurrence without the intervention of any intelligence...essentially with existence always having been and always being...then I deem that no gods exist.



It is POSSIBLE gods exist...just as it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.





The fact is that
 
calamity said:
Gods as they have been defined, be it in the Bible or the Iliad are myths. Do we agree on that much?
Click to expand...

I am not discussing that diversion of yours. If you want to start a thread on that topic...I may attend. Here we are discussing something I have said about myself: I do not believe gods exist...and I do not believe there are no gods.

I claim both are POSSIBLE.


I will simply say that it is possible that something unknown with powers we have yet to perceive or define may exist. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

What is wrong with what I have said?

I reject the term gods because the word has been corrupted and no longer applies to identifying a random, unknown...sort of like sea monsters being used to define giant squids, if I have to grab a quick example.
Click to expand...

Reject whatever you want.

Bottom line, though, is that it is POSSIBLE gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
 
Frank Apisa said:
For me...I KNOW it is POSSIBLE gods exist...just as it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...

Define it else you cannot reasonably proceed. You literally do not know what you are writing about/claiming, if you do not know the definition of the words you use.

When you do define it, you, not me, not calamity YOU FRANK. Use the law of excluded middle with regards to "god" existing. We are not being childish, look it up, plug it in.
It looks like this:
One of these is logically true:
1. god exists
2. god does not exist

Notice how it is the same form of the "claim" you think you make:
I KNOW it is POSSIBLE gods exist...just as it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...

You are actually, assuming you ever defined "god", simply restating law of excluded middle. You aren't actually claiming anything.
If you don't know which is true, that's OK. You can remain silent on the issue.

Reasonable religious people have a much better argument. They can reasonably argue while god isn't real in the scientific sense, the ideas, teachings, community, faith, all have very real, measurable, positive effects for them, and billions of others on this planet and throughout human history.
 
Mach said:
Yet using your reasoning you must admit that it's possible that Calamity is the finest mind that has ever lived.
Click to expand...

It is POSSIBLE. I see no indication that is even close to the case...but it is possible.

And if it is so...it is being wasted.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I am not discussing that diversion of yours. If you want to start a thread on that topic...I may attend. Here we are discussing something I have said about myself: I do not believe gods exist...and I do not believe there are no gods.

I claim both are POSSIBLE.
Click to expand...
Except you only believe possible a god which is not officially defined. I'm OK with that. Not sure there is an argument there either way which can amount to much. I too believe something not yet defined is possible. So what?




What is wrong with what I have said?



Reject whatever you want.

Bottom line, though, is that it is POSSIBLE gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE there are no gods.
Click to expand...
Nope. Gods, as defined, do not exist. We do know that.
 
Mach said:
Define it else you cannot reasonably proceed. You literally do not know what you are writing about/claiming, if you do not know the definition of the words you use.

When you do define it, you, not me, not calamity YOU FRANK. Use the law of excluded middle with regards to "god" existing. We are not being childish, look it up, plug it in.
It looks like this:
One of these is logically true:
1. god exists
2. god does not exist

Notice how it is the same form of the "claim" you think you make:


You are actually, assuming you ever defined "god", simply restating law of excluded middle. You aren't actually claiming anything.
If you don't know which is true, that's OK. You can remain silent on the issue.

Reasonable religious people have a much better argument. They can reasonably argue while god isn't real in the scientific sense, the ideas, teachings, community, faith, all have very real, measurable, positive effects for them, and billions of others on this planet and throughout human history.
Click to expand...

Mach...was I said in my title is spot on.

When I am saying "It is POSSIBLE gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE there are no gods"...that also is spot on.

This nonsense of being tied up about definitions of gods...is evasion and stall tactics. As I have noted...and you have not denied...the finest minds that have ever lived have discussed this conundrum from both sides...with the definitional nonsense you are trying to inject.
 
calamity said:
Except you only believe possible a god which is not officially defined. I'm OK with that. Not sure there is an argument there either way which can amount to much. I too believe something not yet defined is possible. So what?





Nope. Gods, as defined, do not exist. We do know that.
Click to expand...


It is POSSIBLE gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE gods do not exist.

Deal with it...or do what the theists do...claim to KNOW the REALITY. Of course, they claim to know something you claim is impossible...and they are as stone-headed in refusing to accept an alternative.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It is POSSIBLE gods exist...and it is POSSIBLE gods do not exist.

Deal with it...or do what the theists do...claim to KNOW the REALITY. Of course, they claim to know something you claim is impossible...and they are as stone-headed in refusing to accept an alternative.
Click to expand...

I do not claim to know reality. However, I do know the meaning of the word god(s) and the descriptions man has given them. And those stories are mythical. That I know.
 
calamity said:
I do not claim to know reality. However, I do know the meaning of the word god(s) and the descriptions man has given them. And those stories are mythical. That I know.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that so far you are not buying any of the stories any humans have told about any gods that may possibly exist.

Those stories do sound absurd to me.

But if EVERY story told about EVERY god were completely wrong...that would have absolutely no impact whatever on whether gods POSSIBLY exist.
 
Frank Apisa said:
So you are saying that so far you are not buying any of the stories any humans have told about any gods that may possibly exist.

Those stories do sound absurd to me.

But if EVERY story told about EVERY god were completely wrong...that would have absolutely no impact whatever on whether gods POSSIBLY exist.
Click to expand...

This may be the closest we come to agreement. I would just replace the word gods with "unknown forces or beings."
 
Frank Apisa said:
How do I do that?
Click to expand...
You don't have to, because you are actually part OF the universe.
And if the Universe gets sassy with you and says "you are so irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things", you can flip it off and say "yeah, well who exactly are YOU relevant to??" *crickets* "Yeah, that's what I thought!"
 
Mach said:
You don't have to, because you are actually part OF the universe.
And if the Universe gets sassy with you and says "you are so irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things", you can flip it off and say "yeah, well who exactly are YOU relevant to??" *crickets* "Yeah, that's what I thought!"
Click to expand...

We certainly agree there, Mach. I have no idea of where Paralogic was coming from...or where he was going with that bit of commentary.

My reply was just offering him bit of rope...to see what he would do with it.
 
William Rea said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMDjyG5u_A

This makes interesting watching and explains many of the points in here, the default is to lack belief, it is logical and rational.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to watch a half hour video to get what you mean here, William.

I watched the first few seconds...where the words, "The burden of proof..." were said.

I KNOW that "the burden of proof" falls on anyone making an assertion.

If someone asserts there is a GOD...that person assumes the burden of proof for that assertion. The assertion should never be made...because the burden cannot be met.

BUT...if someone asserts there are no gods (as some atheists do)...that person also assumes the burden of proof for the assertion. That assertion also should not be made...because it cannot be met either.
 
calamity said:
A yootoob? Really? I thought only the CT nuts used those to bolster their argument. Learn something every day.
Click to expand...

I use to watch them when they were offered...but I ended up spending 25 to 45 watching something that could have been summed up in a single paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom