6399 replies to this topic

[Apirant]

Honestly, I believe in god. I am not a Christian or any kind of religious person, but if it means god-given miracles, I'm all up for it.I don't know how many times I've said, "If there is a god out there, please help me out here!"Still, I don't like the thought of anyone being superior over me. But then again, some things have more authority or value whether you like it or not. Even if I look at it that way, god must have some brother or sister, or be an entire race out there, because there's always the question who made god. So I see god as a random group of people who are incredibly knowledgeable at some order of science that does not allow contradiction. That's as far as I got with this theory.The only way I can back that theory up is that people managed to recreate life. There's always a group of people, anyone, that can make anime, movie, book, video game, or whatever lifelike. I bet I sound like a really retarded person for saying something like this though.

[38542788]

Sub-species. Not an entirely new species, an entirely new sub-species. It's not like domesticated wheat "evolved" from corn, or some other obscure food bearing plant. It adapted from a different strain of wheat. Wheat changing into different wheat isn't proof that everything evolved from a one-celled organism.It's not proven, it's hypothesized.

Domesticated wheat cannot breed with wild wheat, they are completely different species.Dogs and wolves can be considered subspecies, they are differentiated but they can still breed and interchange genetic material, that doesn't work at all with different wheat species.That's like saying all birds are the same species because we didn't see them evolve from dinosaurs, or that all large cats (panthers, tigers, lions) are the same species, it betrays a stunning igorance about basic facts of biology.

Physical resurrection isn't assured until the day of judgement. Where exactly are these souls supposed to be until then (assuming that people actually have souls). And I never said physical ascension was necessary. I don't really think it is necessary.

You're the one who actually believes in god and this spiritual plane of yours, you tell me.Why is there a need for people to be resurrected, if there's an afterlife that does not involve our corporeal world?Also, please stop with all that sophist crap about god existing as a concept.You mentioned a while ago that the subjective nature of reality does not allow you to verify your own existence in an objective manner. I repeat, yet again, please kill yourself if that is the case.

What seems to be going on is that you define existence as material existence, and thus because concepts have no material existence, you can then say they don't exist. Whereas if one admits that there is such a thing as incorporeal reality, or at least such a thing as limited existence in the mind, one can then say that concepts exist. Am I right?Anyway, aside from the quote...I don't think that most people who believe in God do so just because it can't be disproved that he exists. For them, God's existence has been proved in some way, whether by their personal experience with him, by philosophical inquiry, by trust in others, by miracles, or what have you. What most people mean when they say "You can't prove God's existence" is "You can't prove God's existence in a way that I like." Which is often a way that wouldn't even apply to the sort of God Christians, at least, believe in. While there are philosophical proofs for the existence of God that work, they're not the reason that most theists believe in God. For most, faith comes first and then intellectual proofs. Which is perfectly fine. They're both valid ways of knowing.

Material existence is objective in that everyone who has eyes can see, and everyone who has ears can hear, and everyone who has a mind can reason (to differing extents).Please explain to me what I am missing that I am unable to perceive this incorporeal existence that you speak of.As for faith and proofs both being "valid ways of knowing", this is obviously false, the two methods preclude each other, and the results they reach are often contradictory.

Incidentally, William of Ockham himself (a Catholic) didn't think that the famous "razor" disproved God's existence. His idea was more like what people have already said here, that belief in God is entirely a matter of faith. (Myself, I think Ockham was wrong on that count.) But in any case...Neither logic nor Occam's Razor say any such thing. First, logic is not a philosophical system, but simply the study of reasoning; any sort of reasoned argument uses logic. Logic in and of itself says nothing at all on the subject.Second, Occam's Razor is not an infallible guideline. It is a rule that states one should not introduce unnecessary plurality into an argument ("entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"): this does not mean that the theory which appears simplest is necessarily the best. Rather, it means that a theory should be free from unnecessary elements, which have nothing to do with the phenomenon being explained. Moreover, the assumption that the universe is caused by God is no more inherently complicated than the assumption that the universe is caused by nothing.

No, the simplest theory is always the best; even if that does not necessarily mean that it is true.For example, classical theories of gravity and motion as arrived at by Newton was both the simplest theory based on the evidence at the time, it was of course, not true, but in non-quantum or non-relativistic frames, it operated very well and served as an important tool, if I shot a cannon ball in a certain way, I can easily use F=ma to calculate the trajectory.Later on Einstein arrived at the theories of special and general relativity, showing that gravity and acceleration did not operate as Newton had suggested, and with investigations into quantum effects, it is now know that even the theory of relativity is not adequate in describing all physical phenomena.What is important is that F=ma was stated as it is, and not for example, xF=ma, where x is called, let’s say, god, and is set to be a constant of 1. According to Occam's razor, there is no need for the superfluous in stating the law. If F=ma is adequate, there is no need to inject god into the equation.As for god and nothing being equally complicated causes; well, that's just not true, you still have the job of defining god (how am I supposed to know what such a thing is if I don't believe in it?), whereas I think I can safely presume that we both are aware of what the concept of nothingness means. Besides, nothing is not necessarily the default position, why is “we don’t know” not an acceptable placeholder, while we investigate?As for the universe even having a "cause", that's another discussion in and of itself. Causation requires a linear, one way flow of time, which is, as far as we know, specific to the universe. Logically, it's quite possible that the universe could not have had a cause. Further considering the fact that time may just be due to the arrangement of the universe as a cascade of dimensions along a high to low entropy gradient...well, you get the point.

[38542788]

You seem to be completely missing the point of a devil's advocate argument. I don't believe God exists as a concept.

I know, thus me labeling the arguement as sophist crap.

You also seemed to miss the part where the subjective nature of reality also does not allow me to verify your existence. Should I proceed to dispose of you as well? (That was rhetorical.)

You're completely welcome to try, as long you don't mind dealing with the policemen who also may or may not exist.You seem to have removed the part of my post concerning wheat, am I to assume that you're conceding that point? And why did you include my question about this spiritual plane of yours if you're not even going to answer it?

[38542788]

Doing a rez here.Since trancebam didn't really reply to my points yet I think I'll try to summarize the particular points I've responded to.God not existing is the parsimonious answer to an unfalsifiable question.Basically, there's no evidence for god existing, so there's no reason to act as if god exists, regardless of whether or not god exists.Another popular point has been the anthropic argument, which I've been arguing is a logical fallacy and answered by the argument from poor design.The wikipedia article on the existence of god is actually quite good, and makes many of the points already present in the thread, though it's more precise, accurate, and comprehensive:http://en.wikipedia....t_belief_in_GodI rate as a strong atheist on the scale there.

[reddeath26]

For the last time. This is DEBATES, not "Post your opinion". How about trying it some time?

Although I would question your assetion that with issues like the existence of God there is empirical evidince. The last time I checked the academic community is still very much in debate as to the existence of God. Furthermore how does one argue in favour of a position like agnotisim? Yes this is a debate, however to slant it in such a way as to disadvantage certain view points is something I consider to be heavily discouraging. I also do not see any major problems with his represenatation of the agnostic perspective either.