Can you make a case for a God...

[Paschendale]

Your own religious belief seen above.

If all religions are false, then is the statement "all religions are false" also false? If it is a true statement, then that statement must in fact be false as it itself is a product of religion. Interesting paradox you have invented. I love it! I will keep this one in mind for future discussions. Do not lose track of the fact that not all religions have to do with sacrificing people, demons, and religious texts.

Ironically, you also have an implicit demand that your own religious claim not be examined by logic or reason; I did so anyway, and I discovered a paradox.

Based on your statement above, if you do not admit the reality that your own religion is false then what does that make you, sir?

And yet one of them must be a factual reality. If Thor and Odin are real, then it is not a belief or an opinion to state that. It is a fact. If no gods exist, it is not belief or opinion to state that. If one of the thousands of different interpretations of the western god exists, then it is not belief or opinion. It is a fact. It cannot be that expressions about an objective fact (the existence or non-existence of something) are exclusively a matter of belief. That is not true about Bigfoot or Unicorns, nor is it true about John Stamos or Wayne Gretzky. There cannot be some different standard for one specific question. A theory that something exists must be put forth, and whatever evidence corroborates it must be provided. If no such evidence exists, then neither does the thing in question. That's how we know there's no Loch Ness Monster or vampires, and how we know there is a Tom Cruise and orcas.

There is no belief that cannot be either verified or disproved by facts. This whole thread is about asking where the facts lead. Claiming that the facts don't matter, and only in the case of this one specific question... that's insane. The facts matter. The facts matter when determining if Zeus's edicts are to be obeyed. The facts matter when trying to cure a disease. The belief used to be that demons caused disease. The facts show that germs do it. Belief is irrelevant in the face of facts. No amount of belief will make an exorcism cure smallpox. Medicine does that. So where do the facts lead?

 

[Mya]

I see no debate in the OP question at all.

It's simple.

God IS and we are.

 

[specklebang]

Yours is the only answer that makes any sense.

The creation of the universe came from a source. That source effectively is "god". I'll borrow from DK Moran and call it The Flame.

The universe is a work in progress. Quintillions of pieces of all sorts of stuff flying along. Some burn and are "suns". Some cool and are "planets". Some planets have the ingredients of life. The universe is probably drowning in what we would call "intelligent" or "sentient" species made out of all kinds of stuff.

The Flame is incomprehensible to humans. The chances that The Flame is aware of us are nil. Why would it know and why would it care?

Religions have taken advantage of this and used "belief in god" to set up societies and to enrich the founders of those societies. The arrogance of those "who know god" is just....well.pretty darn unlikely.

I don't think it should be deleted, it was already moved .

That being said, I am a spiritual person who is agnostic. As a fan of Star Trek I like the logical reasoning of the Vulcan's that say that if you can't prove something doesn't exist, then it is still in the realm of possibly existing.

So where I come to my conundrum is the "big bang theory", and if it started with one point of singularity, where the hell did the point of singularity come from? Where did all this mass come from. Then if you come to the conclusion that god created it, can it be possible that we have to consider where god came from?

 

[Cephus]

God IS and we are.

Says who.

Prove it.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I see no debate in the OP question at all.

It's simple.

God IS and we are.

"God is dead and we have killed him [...]" :clap: :2party:

 

[Ryanm]

Like I said a few posts ago before it was ran over by insane ramblings about how any observation made cannot be used to make a point; the only answer about the existence of God or lack thereof that can be proven is that no one can prove it or disprove it.

Show solid proof that there is a God; there is no solid proof.
Show solid proof that there isn't a God; there is no solid proof.

That's the answer.

 

[Cephus]

Like I said a few posts ago before it was ran over by insane ramblings about how any observation made cannot be used to make a point; the only answer about the existence of God or lack thereof that can be proven is that no one can prove it or disprove it.

Show solid proof that there is a God; there is no solid proof.
Show solid proof that there isn't a God; there is no solid proof.

That's the answer.

No, the answer is that it's nobody's job to prove there isn't a God, it rests ENTIRELY on the person who claims that there *IS* a God to prove it's actually so.

When the individual cannot or will not come up with said evidence, then there is no reason whatsoever for any intelligent, rational person to believe in the non-demonstrated God in the first place and, in fact, anyone who does believe without evidence is an idiot.

 

[Ryanm]

No, the answer is that it's nobody's job to prove there isn't a God, it rests ENTIRELY on the person who claims that there *IS* a God to prove it's actually so.

When the individual cannot or will not come up with said evidence, then there is no reason whatsoever for any intelligent, rational person to believe in the non-demonstrated God in the first place and, in fact, anyone who does believe without evidence is an idiot.

It takes as much faith to believe there is no god as it does to believe there is a god because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them. How can you claim that anyone who believes without evidence is an idiot if you yourself believe something without evidence? No offense, but I think that's extremely ignorant of you to say.

Pretend I have a bag full of marbles, and I offer you a bet. Let's say I tell you that I want you to guess if I have a red marble in that bag full of marbles. If you guess correctly, you get 100 billion dollars; if you guess wrong, you die. No one else but me knows if there is a red marble in my bag of marbles. Would you guess that there is no red marble in my bag because you haven't looked inside and seen one? You can't prove that there is a red marble, so there must not be one, right?

Or would you say, "hell no, I won't take that bet!" because you know that you have equal proof that there is or is not a red marble; none. This example assumes that the person being offered the bet values his life more than money.

For those same reasons, it is silly to vindicate that there must be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there isn't, and it is silly to vindicate that there must not be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there is because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them; none.

 

[Mya]

Says who.

Prove it.

I can not help you here. You have to prove it to yourself.

 

[Cephus]

I can not help you here. You have to prove it to yourself.

Then it's not real. Proof for actual, existent things must be objective. Sorry you're delusional.

 

[Cephus]

It takes as much faith to believe there is no god as it does to believe there is a god because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them. How can you claim that anyone who believes without evidence is an idiot if you yourself believe something without evidence? No offense, but I think that's extremely ignorant of you to say.

Entirely wrong. That's as idiotic as saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for or against them. The fact remains, the burden of proof rests *ENTIRELY* on the positive claimant. I can evaluate that claim and, if it is found lacking, reject it as unsupported. This is not a matter of "belief in God" or "belief in the non-existence of God", it's a claim for God being rejected because it doesn't meet it's burden of evidence.

Pretend I have a bag full of marbles, and I offer you a bet. Let's say I tell you that I want you to guess if I have a red marble in that bag full of marbles. If you guess correctly, you get 100 billion dollars; if you guess wrong, you die. No one else but me knows if there is a red marble in my bag of marbles. Would you guess that there is no red marble in my bag because you haven't looked inside and seen one? You can't prove that there is a red marble, so there must not be one, right?

There might be one. There might not be. I wouldn't take the bet because it's a dumb bet. It wouldn't be an extraordinary claim, however, especially if you show me that you have marbles in the bag. We know red marbles exist. We know that you might have a red marble in the bag.

However, if someone ran up to you on the street and demanded that Godzilla was destroying the city, would you take him seriously? All you have is his claim, you have no evidence one way or the other and according to you, it takes just as much faith not to believe his claim as it does to believe it. So do you believe, or do you realize just how stupid this makes your own claims look?

 

[JoshuaW]

It takes as much faith to believe there is no god as it does to believe there is a god because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them. How can you claim that anyone who believes without evidence is an idiot if you yourself believe something without evidence? No offense, but I think that's extremely ignorant of you to say.

Pretend I have a bag full of marbles, and I offer you a bet. Let's say I tell you that I want you to guess if I have a red marble in that bag full of marbles. If you guess correctly, you get 100 billion dollars; if you guess wrong, you die. No one else but me knows if there is a red marble in my bag of marbles. Would you guess that there is no red marble in my bag because you haven't looked inside and seen one? You can't prove that there is a red marble, so there must not be one, right?

Or would you say, "hell no, I won't take that bet!" because you know that you have equal proof that there is or is not a red marble; none. This example assumes that the person being offered the bet values his life more than money.

For those same reasons, it is silly to vindicate that there must be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there isn't, and it is silly to vindicate that there must not be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there is because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them; none.

I disagree, the burden of proof is solely on the party making the extraordinary claim, if there were no claim there would be no opposition to it. You cannot state "no god exists" without the claim of god.

 

[JoshuaW]

Entirely wrong. That's as idiotic as saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for or against them. The fact remains, the burden of proof rests *ENTIRELY* on the positive claimant. I can evaluate that claim and, if it is found lacking, reject it as unsupported. This is not a matter of "belief in God" or "belief in the non-existence of God", it's a claim for God being rejected because it doesn't meet it's burden of evidence.



There might be one. There might not be. I wouldn't take the bet because it's a dumb bet. It wouldn't be an extraordinary claim, however, especially if you show me that you have marbles in the bag. We know red marbles exist. We know that you might have a red marble in the bag.

However, if someone ran up to you on the street and demanded that Godzilla was destroying the city, would you take him seriously? All you have is his claim, you have no evidence one way or the other and according to you, it takes just as much faith not to believe his claim as it does to believe it. So do you believe, or do you realize just how stupid this makes your own claims look?

I completely agree. To say it takes any amount of faith for me to believe an absolutely unproven claim is absurd.

 

[JoshuaW]

It takes as much faith to believe there is no god as it does to believe there is a god because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them. How can you claim that anyone who believes without evidence is an idiot if you yourself believe something without evidence? No offense, but I think that's extremely ignorant of you to say.

Pretend I have a bag full of marbles, and I offer you a bet. Let's say I tell you that I want you to guess if I have a red marble in that bag full of marbles. If you guess correctly, you get 100 billion dollars; if you guess wrong, you die. No one else but me knows if there is a red marble in my bag of marbles. Would you guess that there is no red marble in my bag because you haven't looked inside and seen one? You can't prove that there is a red marble, so there must not be one, right?

Or would you say, "hell no, I won't take that bet!" because you know that you have equal proof that there is or is not a red marble; none. This example assumes that the person being offered the bet values his life more than money.

For those same reasons, it is silly to vindicate that there must be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there isn't, and it is silly to vindicate that there must not be a god because that requires ignoring the possibility that there is because both arguments have the same amount of evidence to support them; none.

Now you pretend I have a invisible coin in one of my hands now I offer you a bet a billion dollars if you pick the right hand death for wrong hand. Only I know what hand it's in. Would you take the bet? Or would you say no I might pick the wrong hand. Nope you'd probably would say what the f*** kind of dumb s*** bet is that there's no such thing as invisible coins and if there is prove it!

 

[Connery]

Says who.

Prove it.

"To love another person is to see the face of God." Victor Hugo.


This is what works for me, every time I love someone from my soul there is a life giving wholeness, it could be a person or an animal I know what I am willing to give and I feel enriched by what I have been given it is all food for the soul ....There is where God resides within me.

 

[Cephus]

"To love another person is to see the face of God." Victor Hugo.


This is what works for me, every time I love someone from my soul there is a life giving wholeness, it could be a person or an animal I know what I am willing to give and I feel enriched by what I have been given it is all food for the soul ....There is where God resides within me.

In other words, you've got nothing but mindless poetry.

Kinda figured.

 

[Connery]

In other words, you've got nothing but mindless poetry.

Kinda figured.

This is my life. This is my spiritual food. My belief in God, my spirituality, has gotten my through situations where there were no worldly explanations. If you have not expedienced what I have provided in the quote and you "out of hand" call it mindless, you clearly have not given it much thought in any fashion....:shrug:

 

[Mya]

Then it's not real. Proof for actual, existent things must be objective. Sorry you're delusional.

Cephus, you might think that because the proof is so utterly elusive, so totally withdrawn from human sight and search it doesn't exist, but who knows.... may be it is already there, it has always been there, only we as humans have limitations and can not have the capacity to approach it, may be it transcends, it goes beyond the intellect. This is possible too, but that doesn't mean It doesn't exist.

I know this is a topic that can go on forever...

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Cephus, you might think that because the proof is so utterly elusive, so totally withdrawn from human sight and search it doesn't exist, but who knows.... may be it is already there, it has always been there, only we as humans have limitations and can not have the capacity to approach it, may be it transcends, it goes beyond the intellect. This is possible too, but that doesn't mean It doesn't exist.

I know this is a topic that can go on forever...

Try this instead.

 

[Mya]

Try this instead.

I won't try it... you see... I believe what I feel is correct for me, and you believe what you think is right for you... and our paths will never cross.

So don't ask me to try anything, I don't need to, I made my mind up about all this a long time ago!

 

[Cephus]

This is my life. This is my spiritual food. My belief in God, my spirituality, has gotten my through situations where there were no worldly explanations. If you have not expedienced what I have provided in the quote and you "out of hand" call it mindless, you clearly have not given it much thought in any fashion....:shrug:

This is what you want to believe, you are emotionally attached to it and it would do you emotional harm to consider the possibility that you're just wrong. That's why emotionalism is problematic when it comes to making determinations about factual reality. It gets in the way of being able to fairly and rationally evaluate claims. To you, feeling good about your belief is much more important than whether or not the belief is actually so.

To me, the opposite is true.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I won't try it... you see... I believe what I feel is correct for me, and you believe what you think is right for you... and our paths will never cross.

So don't ask me to try anything, I don't need to, I made my mind up about all this a long time ago!

Ok. So whatever someone believes is fine? Well I believe "god" told me to kill my children. That doesn't seem a bit strange to you?

 

[Mya]

Ok. So whatever someone believes is fine? Well I believe "god" told me to kill my children. That doesn't seem a bit strange to you?

Please... if you want me to play semantics with you... I won't do it. Above I made clear my thought about this.


What I think is right for me, is right for me .... I can only talk for myself.

 

[Connery]

This is what you want to believe, you are emotionally attached to it and it would do you emotional harm to consider the possibility that you're just wrong. That's why emotionalism is problematic when it comes to making determinations about factual reality. It gets in the way of being able to fairly and rationally evaluate claims. To you, feeling good about your belief is much more important than whether or not the belief is actually so.

To me, the opposite is true.

Hardly this is what you wish to me to be: emotionally charged about my convictions.

My knowledge of God, my soul and my spirituality is a "state of being" not a "feel good" fix. Various facts of my life provide me with an empirical knowledge regarding the aforementioned. I have denied it, countered it, tried to disprove it I have had "dark nights of the soul" where I could not definitively tell you that God existed only to come out with a more definitive knowledge of God and a measure of equanimity I have never felt before.

There is no other way for me as this is my essence.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Entirely wrong. That's as idiotic as saying it takes faith to not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for or against them. The fact remains, the burden of proof rests *ENTIRELY* on the positive claimant. I can evaluate that claim and, if it is found lacking, reject it as unsupported. This is not a matter of "belief in God" or "belief in the non-existence of God", it's a claim for God being rejected because it doesn't meet it's burden of evidence.

A "negative claim" is a claim, nonetheless. You make the claim that God does not exist, yet you offer no empirical evidence to support your claim. Equal burden of proof lies on ALL claimants regardless of the nature of the claim. I make the claim that I have Faith in the existence of God, this is the only positive claim I've made in this thread. I can offer all the empirical evidence you need to defend that claim (that I have Faith).....just go back and read my posts.:lol:

I never once made the claim that God existed based on the preponderance of empirical evidence. I clearly answered the OP when I stated "No, I cannot make a case for the existence of God based on scientific reason and empirical evidence".........nor do I want to or need to for that matter. Those who've never experienced true Faith can never understand this evidently......but Faith is not limited by reason, nor by empirical data.......it simply "is" or it "is not" depending on who espouses it.

This, evidently was not good enough for you, however, as you continue with pleas for evidence and reason. As I stated before, you, along with several other posters in this thread fit the characteristics of "pseudoskeptics" to a tee. You "deny" instead of "doubt".....you make claims (albeit negative ones) and yet refuse to provide any empirical evidence of your own to support them, and worst of all, more likely than not, you resort to insults and ad hominem attacks rather than engage in civil discussion.

I believe it intimidates atheists when they observe people with any shred of intelligence who could subscribe to Faith......could act so "unreasonable" and believe in something "unproveable" (at least by the limitations of human reason). Well, this may come as a shock, but many people do "unreasonable" things.....like falling in love.....or giving all they have to charity.....and the world just keeps turning! :lol:

God Bless!