Can you make a case for a God...

[joko104]

The problem with the OP is not just does a person have "proof," but proof to another person. Proof to yourself and to others are two very different matters. Lack of provable knowledge does not prove that knowledge is inaccurate. It also asserts that "God" (or Gods) is a singularly equally applicable to everyone. There may not be a God for you, even if for someone else.

My wife learned long ago to stop even mentioning her view that the majority of people are no different than animals, plants or other background scenery for the limit number of beings on this planet in this reality that also have a metaphysical self or existence. Thus if you told her to prove that you have a soul she'd probably respond that in all likelihood you don't. If you did, you'd know it. She would, however, be unemotionally civilly polite in the sense she would with a dog or cat.

 

[JoshuaW]

Can you make a case for a God...



Yes, I can. For only an almighty GOD can create these things:

1. Gravity
2. Eyesight
3. Breathable Oxygen
4. Lungs made from flesh but transfer oxygen
5. Blood

^These are just things pertaining to the human body and the earth. but there's so much to prove a GOD exists.

It's when people ignorantly try to explain away these things that they create their own disbelief.

Yup I'm ignorant because I don't believe that the complexity of life and the gravity of this planet were just willed that way by some unknown creator.

 

[joko104]

In a U.S. court if a witness is caught in just ONE lie, there dismissed and the judge gives the jury directions to disregard all their testimony or regard it as untrue.

That is absolutely 100% false.

Second, a fast statement by a human religious person doesn't prove anything for or against the existence of a God.

 

[Ryanm]

No, it does not necessarily mean asserting that there is no god. You left out one crucial component which I put in bold below.

theism = belief in god
atheism = lack of belief in god

here is the definition from dictionary.com

a·the·ism:
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings

Now I believe that there is no god, however I cannot and will not assert this, so definition 1 would apply to me, but even further, definition 2 applies to me even more directly, I disbelieve in the existence of god.

You are right that agnostic versus gnostic deals with whether or not knowledge of a god is possible, but this is not a mutually exclusive term to atheism.

I self describe as an agnostic atheist, as do many others, the majority of atheists probably fit into this category.

That's kind of funny. I've told people before, "I'm the agnostic denomination of Christianity." Then they're like, wtf? Then I say, "What I mean is, the god that I'm not sure exists is the Christian god." :doh

I suppose your right though. Atheist could mean both the assertion of no god and also the simple lack of assertion of existence of a god.

 

[Ryanm]

So you do believe in a god correct? I assume this is a nameless faceless god that you believe exists and is in no way affiliated with any organized religions on this planet correct? Because that is the only example of god that is relevant in the discussion of my lack of proof to the contrary. No for lack of evidence, I can't say god doesn't exist, in that very very broad context.
As to the religions here on this planet I can very much so say I have irrefutable evidence that proves these so called gods don't exist. Because most all these religions teach there BELIEFS as a matter of fact. When nearly all of it has scientific evidence that contradict it's claims. So to make a claim about real things that supposedly took place on this planet does require you provided evidence. I don't have to disprove there every claim though, although most have been, I really only need disprove one extraordinary claim, and that particular god is proven not to exist. In a U.S. court if a witness is caught in just ONE lie, there dismissed and the judge gives the jury directions to disregard all their testimony or regard it as untrue.

Wonderful! That's absolutely right, and I am quite sure even the religious are beyond attemping to prove an organized religion here. You're dead on by saying the only concept of God that is relevant here is a nameless faceless god that one believe (could) exists and is in no way affiliated with any organized religions on this planet. I don't know why God would choose to be an author when we have such great technologies these days. I would think if there was an all-powerful being it could at least offer up a Blu-ray or something.

 

[Ryanm]

Can you make a case for a God...



Yes, I can. For only an almighty GOD can create these things:

1. Gravity
2. Eyesight
3. Breathable Oxygen
4. Lungs made from flesh but transfer oxygen
5. Blood

^These are just things pertaining to the human body and the earth. but there's so much to prove a GOD exists.

It's when people ignorantly try to explain away these things that they create their own disbelief.

Those things would be considered evidence at most. None of it is proof. You can't find proof, and here's why... Where did God come from/what created God?

 

[Cephus]

I have confirmed that I can't prove that gods exist, but I did not confirm that gods don't exist.

True, similarly I cannot confirm that leprechauns don't exist. That doesn't mean that a rational person ought to believe in them.

 

[Cephus]

meh....I'm not interested in arguing semantics with you. You are either: (1) dishonest or (2) self-deluded, either way, you consistently reveal yourself as such. Your persecutorial tone gets quite old after a few pages. :yawn:

Enjoy your VERY rational existence my friend.

Semantics are important. Words have meanings for a reason. It's clear we cannot rely on you to be honest or responsible, thus thank you, I will enjoy on my very rational existence. May you enjoy your blatant delusions.

 

[Cephus]

Can you make a case for a God...



Yes, I can. For only an almighty GOD can create these things:

1. Gravity
2. Eyesight
3. Breathable Oxygen
4. Lungs made from flesh but transfer oxygen
5. Blood

^These are just things pertaining to the human body and the earth. but there's so much to prove a GOD exists.

It's when people ignorantly try to explain away these things that they create their own disbelief.

Says who?

Prove it.

 

[Ryanm]

So, tell me about your god. What does your god do? What evidence has your god left behind from those actions?

The god I have in mind is a deist god. The evidence left behind is a universe. This god does not interact with or influence the world, but simply allows it to exist. That is, if all of that didn't just happen on its own, and this god does not exist at all.

 

[Ryanm]

True, similarly I cannot confirm that leprechauns don't exist. That doesn't mean that a rational person ought to believe in them.

Absolutely, and a rational person shouldn't believe in a god for the same reason. At the same time, a person who follows logic would also not profess that leprechans cannot exist. Before we had proof that the world was round most people were sure that it was flat. Why? because they couldn't prove it was round. Obviously, it was round even when people couldn't prove it, but the lack of proof that it was round did not make it flat. So yes, being unable to disprove leprechauns does not suffice as proof that they exist or do not exist; it merely proves that you can't prove it either way as of right now.

 

[Cephus]

Yup I'm ignorant because I don't believe that the complexity of life and the gravity of this planet were just willed that way by some unknown creator.

No, you're not the ignorant one. In fact, 4Horsemen and most of the other theists that respond that way are practicing the logical fallacy referred to as "the argument from ignorance". They cannot understand a certain proposition, thus they declare, without a shred of evidence, "God did it!"

It "solves" all the problems without any of the pesky inconveniences like, oh... thinking...

 

[Cephus]

Absolutely, and a rational person shouldn't believe in a god for the same reason. At the same time, a person who follows logic would also not profess that leprechans cannot exist. Before we had proof that the world was round most people were sure that it was flat. Why? because they couldn't prove it was round. Obviously, it was round even when people couldn't prove it, but the lack of proof that it was round did not make it flat. So yes, being unable to disprove leprechauns does not suffice as proof that they exist or do not exist; it merely proves that you can't prove it either way as of right now.

You keep flogging the same idiotic straw man over and over. I'm not saying God cannot exist. I'm saying that there is no evidence that God actually does exist, thus the theists have not met their burden of proof and I DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! The same is true of leprechauns. I'm not saying they cannot exist, I simply have no reason to think that they actually do. The burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the person who claims a particular proposition is true. Theists have failed in every conceivable way to demonstrate their claims.

 

[Ryanm]

You keep flogging the same idiotic straw man over and over. I'm not saying God cannot exist. I'm saying that there is no evidence that God actually does exist, thus the theists have not met their burden of proof and I DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! The same is true of leprechauns. I'm not saying they cannot exist, I simply have no reason to think that they actually do. The burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the person who claims a particular proposition is true. Theists have failed in every conceivable way to demonstrate their claims.

You have my word that I'm not trying to pull a straw man.

Otherwise, I have nothing in that post that I can't agree with 100%. You're right; the burden of proof is on the claimant, and you shouldn't believe it if they can't prove it.

Perhaps the communication problem we're having is that you're assuming I'm trying to force you to make a decision that something is or is not in existence, but I'm not.

 

[4Horsemen]

Says who?

Prove it.

Easy. Did mankind create any of those things? NOPE.

So who/what did?

Definitely something more powerful than you and I. you agree? of course you do, unless you're the ultimate ignoramus.

weak minded humans can't even stay awake a full 24 hours without passing out into a deep snore. The mind of man is too weak to even phathom the power of GOD. Only thing we can do is use the elements GOD gave us to do what we do. We can do NOTHING without GOD's help. from taking a dump on the toilet to swimming in the ocean. your entire being is energy that belongs to GOD Almighty. You can't stop yourself from dying but he can. that's power mankind can't even understand. So when I come across arrogant twip topics like this I just laugh and the microcosm of minute thought.

The day you can create anti-matter, jump dimensions, destroy galaxiesetc... is the day YOU become a GOD. until then give props where they are do please.

 

[Cephus]

Perhaps the communication problem we're having is that you're assuming I'm trying to force you to make a decision that something is or is not in existence, but I'm not.

No, I'm not assuming you're trying to do anything of the sort, I'm pointing out that you're posting on a debate forum when you have nothing that you can actually debate, you just have claims which are not supported by a shred of evidence, logic or critical thinking. By posting things that you say you believe, you are inherently making the claim that they are factually true. It is irrational to believe in things that you do not actually think are true. Thus, since you hold these beliefs, I and others are asking *WHY* you think they are true and how, logically, you came to that conclusion.

Yet all you can do is repeat "you can't prove me wrong, you can't prove me wrong!" No, not the way you've framed your statements, but you also can't prove yourself right. Are you saying that you blindly believe whatever people cannot disprove? Nobody can disprove invisible unicorns, do you believe in them because of it? Or are you just randomly picking and choosing things that make you feel good and declaring them to be true because you want them to be true? That's neither logical nor rational, there simply is no means of fact-checking for truth. Trust me, that's a really sad way to go through life.

 

[Cephus]

Easy. Did mankind create any of those things? NOPE.

So who/what did?

Nature did. Nature "created" us. The physical laws of the universe generated everything.

Definitely something more powerful than you and I. you agree? of course you do, unless you're the ultimate ignoramus.

Argument? Meet ignorance.

 

[4Horsemen]

Nature did. Nature "created" us. The physical laws of the universe generated everything.

so what created Nature? it didn't create itself. trace it back, you'll end up with GOD, not the Big Bang.

Argument? Meet ignorance.

Typical responses when you're defeated in the world of debate.

I see you couldn't understand/reply to my last comment so I'll post it again.

 

[4Horsemen]

weak minded humans can't even stay awake a full 24 hours without passing out into a deep snore. The mind of man is too weak to even phathom the power of GOD. Only thing we can do is use the elements GOD gave us to do what we do. We can do NOTHING without GOD's help. from taking a dump on the toilet to swimming in the ocean. your entire being is energy that belongs to GOD Almighty. You can't stop yourself from dying but he can. that's power mankind can't even understand. So when I come across arrogant twip topics like this I just laugh and the microcosm of minute thought.

The day you can create anti-matter, jump dimensions, destroy galaxiesetc... is the day YOU become a GOD. until then give props where they are do please.

 

[Cephus]

so what created Nature? it didn't create itself. trace it back, you'll end up with GOD, not the Big Bang.

Nope sorry. You will never end up with God because there's no evidence of God. Eventually you get back to a point where we just don't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. There is something wrong with making up an explanation because you'd rather not admit ignorance.

 

[Somerville]

The argument from incredulity seldom works in the real world, at least it doesn't for very long

The day you can . . . jump dimensions,

is not the day you become a GOD, rather it is simply another step in mankind's ongoing progress. To post such a comment on a day when we can read,
Warp Drive More Possible than Thought just shows us another example of absolutist thinking - a style of thought which says "We ain't done it - THEREFORE, WE, simple little humans, can't do it - ever!"

A warp drive would manipulate space-time itself to move a starship, taking advantage of a loophole in the laws of physics that prevent anything from moving faster than light. A concept for a real-life warp drive was suggested in 1994 by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre; however, subsequent calculations found that such a device would require prohibitive amounts of energy.

Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science.

 

[JoshuaW]

That is absolutely 100% false.

Second, a fast statement by a human religious person doesn't prove anything for or against the existence of a God.

Okay they may not be dismissed, but if in fact any of their testimony is found to be a direct lie or false statements a judge will give a jury the option to presume their entire testimony were untrue. That's if the testimony aren't thrown out all together.

This is irrelevant though it was a STUPID statement I should not have made. I'm not a lawyer. I shouldn't pretended I know the law.

 

[JoshuaW]

That is absolutely 100% false.

Second, a fast statement by a human religious person doesn't prove anything for or against the existence of a God.

Second no a false statements by religious people doesn't prove gods non existence. Religion proves gods non existence.

 

[JoshuaW]

Wonderful! That's absolutely right, and I am quite sure even the religious are beyond attemping to prove an organized religion here. You're dead on by saying the only concept of God that is relevant here is a nameless faceless god that one believe (could) exists and is in no way affiliated with any organized religions on this planet. I don't know why God would choose to be an author when we have such great technologies these days. I would think if there was an all-powerful being it could at least offer up a Blu-ray or something.

Thanks. I do believe this is a universe of infinite possibility with all matter bound by the same physical laws. With such a vast universe I believe almost anything is possible. I would love to travel the stars and maybe even meet other intelligent life on other world's. If I ever do I'll post the whole trip on my fb so I can prove it.

 

[TOJ]

As someone once said,

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no proof is possible."

.