Why there is almost certainly no God
When people hear of God, they probably think of the Abrahamistic deity of the monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Regardless of one's religious affiliation and/or beliefs, adherents believe there is one God as being a supreme deity or grandest possible entity, ect.. While people can believe in whatever they want, many espouse their belief in God as factual or true. Of course, as I always say, belief does not equal fact. And there are various reasons why there is almost certainly no God. Here are several brief reasons:
First is the obvious lack of any objective, empirical evidence or proof. Religion and belief in various god/s has exited in human societies for thousands of years. Yet, in all that time, not one religion has ever substantiated any claim for the existence of god/s. Without any evidence, there is no logical reason to assume any god exists, or has ever existed.
Second, believers often cite religious texts such as the bible as "proof" of a god. What they fail to understand is citing such texts as "proof" because the text says so is circular logic. Logical fallacies like that do not make a compelling case for the existence of God. Many also cite "miracles" or their own "experiences" of god. Of course, such things are subjective and anecdotal, based on something along the lines of "because I (or they) said so." Such experiences are often personal and based on emotion and/or ignorance.
Third, theists sometimes say that most of the world's population worships a deity of some kind and that must be enough to prove there's a god. Except that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because many people believe in something does not automatically validate the existence of said something. While many cultures do have various religious beliefs in god/s, there is nothing to substantiate those beliefs or claims based on those beliefs. Many religions vary and are also in conflict with each other regarding certain beliefs and tenets. One would think that if there was a god, people would at least believe the same thing.
Fourth, science itself contradicts with some biblical claims. Some theists like to believe the Great Flood, Adam & Eve, and Sodom & Gomorrah were actual events. Except there is nothing in science which substantiates those claims. If anything, science can even refute certain claims. The Great Flood comes to mind. So if biblical claims can be discredited by science, then it shows the bible is fallible (as it was written by fallible men) and thus diminishes the validity of various biblical claims, including any claim for a god.
Those are just several reasons why there is almost certainly no god. I'm sure there are more. Feel free to include more reasons in a discussion.
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
A creator of the universe might exist. There is nothing logically or factually that shows it impossible for our universe to be the creation of a sentient entity. And it is quite likely that a sentient creator would meet everyone's definition of 'god'. In short, deism might be true.
But most people do not think of god in such abstract terms. Most who believe in a god are not deists, but rather theists. They have a particular god (or gods) that they have decided is the one true god; thus all other gods are simply fiction — dreamed up by human beings. And the particular god typically has rather specific characteristics, personality and stories of its interaction with its creations. Often the god has very specific plans for its creations and rules that are to be followed. These all serve to make the god more personal and illustrate the god's great powers. However, such specificity also reveals the hands of ancient fallible men with pens.
A god might exist, but the biblical god (as defined) most certainly does not. The god of the Bible (hereafter: 'God') was designed (during times when gods were plenty and competing) to be the grandest possible entity — a god so awesome that no other god could supersede it. In the battle of the gods, God was as grand as mankind could imagine. God is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, eternal, supernatural and is the arbiter of objective morality. Nothing can beat that.
Trouble is, by stretching to create the uber-god, the biblical authors stepped on their beards. Many contradictions exist in the biblical definition of God. Since only one contradiction is necessary to illustrate that God (the god of the Bible) is impossible, consider the quality of omniscience. Omniscience is perfect knowledge —God knows all— knowledge that is not limited by time. God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. This is an accident waiting to happen (in terms of a credible definition).
An omniscient entity cannot be surprised. An omniscient entity cannot learn from its mistakes (it cannot make mistakes). Right at the beginning of the Bible we see God surprised and disappointed that Adam & Eve disobeyed Him. That is impossible by definition. Being omniscient, God knew exactly what Adam & Eve would do.
Throughout the Bible, God continues to be developed as a compounded contradiction. The character 'God' in the Bible is logically impossible.
Nonetheless, there may indeed be a god and the Bible might in some way indirectly refer to this god. But 'God' in the Bible is a logically flawed character invented by ancient men and should not be taken to be divine nor should the character's words in the Bible be taken as divine. Logically.
And yet, they are not willing to accept their god might be fiction too.
I find it curious that a "Supreme" deity also seems to share many traits of its creations: Jealousy, anger, joy, ect.. One would think a deity would be above petty emotions like that.
But somehow, we are all supposed to have "free will."
They basically took all the other gods (like the Greek/Roman pantheon) and combined it into a singular super-god. Kind of like a "Superman" of gods-has many or all the powers of other gods.
Except the Flying Spaghetti monster. RAMEN! LOL
But many theists will logic-twist any contradiction away.
Even though Adam & Eve supposedly had free will and did not understand the difference between right from wrong. Therefore, they did not know what they were doing or disobeying god was wrong or that they shouldn't have done it.
Kind of like the character 'Q' from Star Trek: TNG.
What Prevents Humans From Believing
There are billions and billions of pieces of evidence that prove the existence of our Creator God. Yet you will find some humans doubt and others do not want to exercise logic nor believe. Why is this the case? There is an important point to be made here. This Creator has such great control over our hearts and bodies, that in the event we cause harm to ourselves or others, the immediate punishment is the loss of reason and logic from our hearts and minds. This is His way of telling us you are doing something wrong- a misdeed - and that it has to stop.
These misdeeds may be the prevention of others from existing, for example an abortion, or a life style that may prevent babies from being created and borne. Ask yourself the question "I've been given the chance to exist - am I allowing others to exist ?" It may also be oppressive practices such as usury and interest that may impoverish others and rob them of their right to live free of debt and in happiness. Be careful of things such as smoking and drinking alcohol (both of which harm you and can lead to cancer), or lifestyles of illicit sex. These can lead you to atheism or weakeness of belief. To make it back to our Creator, we must stop all practices that harm ourselves or others. Simply ask Him for forgiveness and repent. No matter what religion you are from or belief you had before, if you ask the One Creator for forgiveness and stop any harmful act, this will lead to reason and logic returning to you. Then you can clearly see and recognize His existence.
Be fully aware that your heart, which has no intelligence, may be polluted to where it simply doesn't want to believe. Well who made this heart in the first place? The mind can only beat the heart using fear of failure and the drive to succeed. Even if the author of this site was to do anything tomorrow to harm himself or others, everything he wrote on this site would no longer make sense to him, and his ability to reason with logic would be turned off by God.
So who is this God, and what is His true identity? Well I will leave this part of the journey to you. http://www.whygodisreal.net
Feel free to make an argument.
That whole article is an argument from ignorance. "We don't know how it happened, so it must be God" is neither evidence nor logic.
Spot on.
Nothing. People are free to believe whatever they want. Some of us are simply incapable of believing something without evidence.
Such as? be specific!
There is no logic in belief.
Which is? That you have nothing but an argument from ignorance or an appeal to emotion fallacy!
So much for the idea of "free will."
Some of know something is wrong because of what we're taught, experience, or due to a sense of compassion or empathy. There's nothing mystical about it.
It’s an excellent well reasoned and logical article.
Given that assessment, I will not be asking you for recommendations of well-reasoned articles.
Which god would that be? The Egyptians had Ptah, Amun, Amunet and Ra. All were gods of creation and were worshiped in a time predating the god of the Bible by centuries.
Or Geb, the God of the Earth.
Or even to go the other direction there was Osiris the god of the underworld and afterlife.
Probably, at least for me, the idea that the Abrahamistic deity has too many things that seem to be borrowed from much older belief systems that cannot make that idea of a god believable. That can be compounded with the ever changing bible. The bible states there is only one god but the 1st commandment acknowledges other gods.
So I take it you have no intention of actually addressing the questions posed to you then?
You guys are really, seriously, hung up on having it out with the God of the Bible.
The Bible neither proves there is a God, nor does constantly debunking the Bible prove there is not.
But whatever floats your boats I guess.
The very first paragraph of my comment:
Your opening comment is a strawman argument that blindly ignores my opening paragraph. Hello?
Nah, some of us just point out BS and illogic. What qualifies better for that than the bible or god?
Many theists would disagree with you there. I've had many explicitly use the bible as "proof."
There is no god of the Bible. There is 0the very same proof of Narnia as there is for the Abrahamic god. You must willfully divorce yourself from logic and science to attempt to believe in god.
This is almost childish.
God couldn't tell a story if He wanted to?
To wit, an omniscient entity who is surprised and disappointed is a contradiction . Thus God (as defined in the Bible) is a contradiction. That character (as defined) does not exist.
Believe me, I got your point. I just don't think it is at all important.
The Bible was written by men, interpreting what they thought was God's inspiration to them.
Let me put it like this, was God REALLY disappointed in "Adam and Eve" ? Or did a human being tell that story in the Bible, from a human, not divine perspective?
Some people believe the Bible is literalluy the word of God, but many Christians dont. Catholics dont. Some Protestant denominations dont. Either way, the passage in Genesis is irrelevant to the question of whether or not God exists.
Clearly you did not.
The God character is a contradiction. That does not mean there is no god, just that the God of the Bible (the character) is impossible (as defined) and does not exist.
My conclusion is that the Adam & Eve story is a rehash of prior stories all created by human authors. Being human, they made mistakes. One mistake was to define a God character that was too grand for their logic. They bit off more than they could chew and wound up defining a God character that was logically impossible (a contradiction). In result, they inadvertently proved to those who apply logic that the Bible is clearly not divine and that whatever commands were made by the God character are likely nothing more than words of ancient men with pens and agendas.
That does not mean there is no god; it means that the God of the Bible (as defined) is fictional.
But he loves you and wants you to be happy.....................
That the Christian essence, as arose out of Judaism, showed such great staying power amidst the extraordinary political, economic, intellectual and other radical changes of the modern age is another reason I offer for thinking that the existence of a god is very probable. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/arguments-why-god-very-probably-exists-75451
Argumentum ad populum.
Does the same apply to Islam, which has been around for quite a while, and is growing faster than Christianity?
There are religions that are older than Christianity. By your (flawed) logic, that means the god of such religions is even more probably than your god. But religion alone doesn't prove anything, much less the existence of any deity at the heart of a religion. Only that there are people who believe the same thing, nothing more.
I am god. Don't fuck with me!
Well it is about time you show up. You have had people running about for thousands of years creating all sorts of characters to represent you and spinning many tales of your exploits. Worse, they have declared rules to control the behavior of the masses and said they came from you — with some very serious consequences. Obviously, given our human imaginations, we all seem to have a different view of you. Some even perceive you as a collection of gods. Others view you as existence itself. Some are not convinced you exist (and can you blame us given the information we had to work with?).
Please set the record straight. Also, would you mind letting people know once and for all that the Bible, Qur'an, etc. are not your divine word? Thanks.
I've got a question for you....why do you give men nipples?
Aw, I want the platypus question answered more than that one.
Get in line, Sister! I was here first
OK, how about this: Why do male platypus (platypi?) have nipples?
They do?
Ok....that's fair
Actually, I had no idea whether they do when I wrote that. So I just looked it up ... and it's even weirder. Apparently they do not, but:
"female platypus lack teats, instead milk is released through pores in the skin."
You know what...get in line ahead of me. God's got some splaining to do about this here animule.
I know it's a mammal (maybe) that lays eggs. But if it doesn't have mammary glands then is it a mammal? It's warm blooded, right (that's called endothermic, I think)
I'd ask you if you're actually a "He" and if so, what makes that true? Is it because you believe yourself male in your mind or does it mean you have male genitals? And if you have male genitals, why? Did you have to use them in making the universe? And if you don't have male genitals but consider yourself a "He", wouldn't that mean anyone can and should adopt the gender they feel in their minds and not necessarily base it on their genitals?
Heh. I agree. And even weirder: (from Nat'l Geog): The duck-billed platypus finds food by feel and by detecting electrical signals. The male platypus has a venomous spur on the inside of its ankle.
Electrical signals???
Good questions
I think platypusses are aliens left behind from a long ago space mission
Well, you will notice that God has conveniently decided not to bother answering our questions. Big surprise there.
Well it seems the ones most against people expressing the gender identity based on how they feel inside regardless of the genitals are religious persons who ascribe a gender to a being that has no need for genitals at all, or so you'd think. "He" wouldn't need genitals to reproduce, a beard for keeping his face warm, eyes to see, a nose to smell, an ass to sit or shit with, feet to walk with, arms to hold things with, none would be necessary yet the bible claims we are "made in Gods image".
Biology tells us that we evolved all of these body parts because they enabled us to survive in a harsh environment. And the parts we no longer need, like a tail when our ancestors came out of the trees, have disappeared or been turned into a vestigial tailbone that only presents itself in rare births.
So the only thing that actually makes sense when it comes to the images people have come up with for their God/gods would be man creating God in his image, not the other way around.
He's down below fantasizing about a naked Eve.....
You know, that explanation usually makes me roll my eyes. But in the case of the platypus, it seems plausible.
Gigging
1-Omniscient
2-A "plan"
3-Free will
4-????
One thing we can be sure of, gods do not exist without worshipers.
Yep, it's like "Puff" the Magic Dragon.
Played that song at the 72 boy scout jamboree in Idaho.
Religious belief is what happens when the first conman met the first fool. Human society has been suffering for the past 20,000+ years for his actions.
What they fail to understand is citing such texts as "proof" because the text says so is circular logic.
Jesus loves me, this I know - cuz the Bible tells me so.
An imaginary friend is always guaranteed to love you.
Don't I wish...
The one I have can get downright nasty.
I think it's kinda mental,,,Shhh
lol
Not if that imaginary friend is the biblical god! While some Christians believe in a loving god, the actions of the biblical god are quite often anything but loving. As we've discussed in the past, it's the epitome of an abusive spouse or parent - claiming to love you but demonstrating just the opposite.
My imaginary friends (just like my wet dreams) always go South on me.
My imaginary friend wants payment
"Why there is almost certainly no God"
Way to skirt outa the "There is no God" mantra you seem to like to put forth.....ALL THE TIME !
Wouldn't be "Rational" huh !
Can you link where Gordy or any other atheist on this site has said "There is no God"?
I regularly hear them say "I don't believe in your God" and "The God in the bible almost certainly doesn't exist" but I don't recall hearing any of them claim to be a Gnostic atheist who is absolutely certain there is no God.
Do any Christians on this site entertain the belief that the Hindu God might exist? Or accept that possibility of Allah existing and not their Hebrew God Yahweh or the triune God many call "Jesus"? Wouldn't that be rational? To accept that if there's a chance your God exists without any empirical evidence, than maybe there's a chance it's the God Hindu's worship that is the true God, right? Or are you a Gnostic atheist when it comes to every other God but your own?
I have not claimed there is no God with absolute certainty, as that is a logically indefensible stance. I have often said I do not believe in or accept claims for a god without evidence. That is a rational position.
I'd say you have. In this very seed you have declared God to be "BS" and "imaginary."
That is his conclusion. He stated that he does not claim that his conclusion is truth and accepts the possibility of being wrong.
Do you acknowledge that your god might not exist?
That is my view and conclusion about claims for a god, as there is no evidence to support the existence of one. I share the same views about fairies, leprechauns, and gnome. However, I am willing to reconsider my position should any evidence be put forward. As it stands, there is no such evidence forthcoming.
I have often asked theists who posit that god exists if they ever consider or accept the possibility their beliefs/god are wrong. Unsurprisingly, most do not. It's intellectually dishonest at its core.
Agreed. Trouble with these 'debates' is that one side often resorts to seeking some angle in which to declare a flaw - even if the flaw is generated by purposely misreading ambiguous language. That is, there rarely is an honest intent to debate - to engage in the dialectic - to pursue truth through challenge. It is almost always defensive and emotional. Finding those times where a truly honest exchange takes place is like mining for gold.
Amen !
Yep, that sounds pretty certain. I think you're trying to have it both ways. You're making conclusions and doing it with talk of proof. All the while, you're trying to claim you're open minded. Sorry, but that just doesn't work. Your conclusions and declarations are unequivocal.
This discussion is about what Gordy believes. Gordy has said God is BS, fiction, imaginary. The title of his article notwithstanding, we aren't seeing the word "probably" in front of those words. You're both trying to have it both ways.
And you decided to engage in an ad hominem attack. I guess that's ok for you.
You're engaging in trashing the character of people who disagree with you, not "engaging in the dialectic" or pursuing truth through challenge.
Summarizing years of general experience in religious debates is not an ad hominem attack. And I am confident you are quite aware of that.
And my debates focus on the content. Unfortunately I typically must write comments like this one (pointless, meta) because others prefer to make things personal (and fabricate allegations) rather than engage in the dialectic.
See Tacos! here you are telling Gordy what he thinks. The man has clearly stated that he does not consider his views infallible yet you are arguing with him about that.
Instead of complaining, engage in debate. Show where he is wrong. Here is what he wrote:
Do you see where Gordy writes: "I am willing to reconsider my position ..."? What is the logical flaw in his position?
Do you mean examples such as this???
This is a pretty good example of what you do all the time. Seeking some way of reading something in order to make it fit your beliefs concerning contradictions in the Bible. What makes you think God was either surprised or disappointed?
Since I already know what your answer will be, I'll just go ahead and tell you what actually happened. God knew what Adam and Eve had done. He knew where they were and He knew who told them they were naked and why. He was neither surprised or disappointed. The scene depicts a Parent confronting His children after they had done something bad. The scene went down the way it did to illustrate just how badly things had gone wrong. Before Adam and Eve disobeyed, they enjoyed perfect existence with God. He was actually there with them in a manner even you guys could not deny had you been there.
Now, after the fact, God asks, 'where are you?' He isn't asking about his physical location. What would that matter to God? He's actually asking where they were in relation to Himself spiritually. He wasn't asking for His own enlightenment. He was asking for theirs. He as asking them to consider where they are in relationship to Himself at this moment. It was a call for self examination.
This was not a cause for hiding from God and is the second point, after eating the fruit, that Adam fails. He was hiding not because he was naked, because he always had been. Why would it be a reason now? Nor had hearing God's voice ever made him afraid before. He was hiding because the effects of his sin caused guilt and shame. He failed to recognize or admit his guilt and instead disguises it as nakedness, unwilling to admit what he had done or address it directly. What he should have said was, I disobeyed you and ate the fruit. Please forgive me.
This doesn't literally mean that Adam and Eve had been unaware that they were naked all this time. It doesn't address physical nakedness at all, really. God is still speaking spiritually. Up until they sinned, they had been covered by God's glory. They had done nothing that would make being naked a shameful thing, nor would they think of it that way. They were as God created them so why would it be any other way? Their nature was such in the presence of God's glory that being naked was no more account than having brown eyes.
But Satan deceived them and they removed themselves from God's glory. They stepped out of the way things were supposed to be. They broke harmony with God and could not undo what they had done. And so, sin entered the world. Not satisfied with that, Satan made sure they knew what they had done. That a Holy and Righteous God would reject them (not true), that they were now objects of shame and disgust to God (also not true). He convinced them that their nakedness was shameful to God and they must hide from Him (who else would have told them they were naked and what it meant?)
Also implied by the question, why were they listening to someone other than God? Who told you that being naked was wrong? Why are you believing it?
Again, God already knew the answer. He asked to give them a chance to confess what they had done and repent, but they didn't. Instead, they did what we so often do. Shift the blame or explain why it wasn't their fault. Instead of confessing and asking for forgiveness, they try to avoid their guilt.
This whole thing wasn't about God not knowing what was what. It was about illustrating right off the bat the effects of sin. We want to excuse it or blame someone else for it. Come up with excuses. Anything except face God for it. This was an illustration of the before and after effect of the first sin.
To you, the God of the Bible is just a man made fiction so you never really look at what it says beyond trying to prove your own view of it. You only read it shallowly, with your mind already made up. Then, somehow, have the balls to say it is us who resort to seeking some angle in which to declare a flaw. Say we're ignoring obvious contradictions but unable to see that we don't read the Bible the way you do. It doesn't mean what you say it does.
You remember those posters that had all those dots on them? They just looked like dots until you looked at it a certain way and then a dinosaur or some other thing just popped out of it? Well, you never get beyond the dots. You don't bother to try. That's your choice, but how can you tell the rest of us we don't see the dinosaur?
How can an omniscient deity possibly be surprised when the definition of omniscient is "all knowing"? How do you surprise a deity that knows what his creation is going to do before the creation does it?
You're the one who went after other people's honesty.
Fabricate? I quoted you.
You didn't read any farther than that, did you? You might go back and try actually reading the post. You'll find I explain it.
No. That is not an example of my point.
What I do all the time is point out what the Bible says. What remains fascinating is how some can actually not see the contradictions in the Bible.
God creates Adam & Eve and gives them instructions. They defy God, eat from the tree of knowledge. God 'finds' them, curses them and all of their progeny and bans them from Eden. Do you disagree with this summary of Genesis 3? Here is one translation below:
Did God know that Adam & Eve would follow the suggestion of the serpent?
If so, then God created all three knowing full well that He would ban them from Eden. Quite nasty - setting up naïve humans to fail right off the bat - and with catastrophic consequences.
If not, then God was surprised . Now, was God pleased that Adam & Eve showed initiative or was he disappointed? If he was pleased, He had a strange way of showing it. It would seem that God was disappointed with Adam & Eve.
So clear this up Drakk. You think I am being horribly unfair by noting God (as depicted in the story) was surprised and disappointed. Explain your position.
( I addressed your pre-answer @ 5.2.18 )
If you quote me then it is best to not change the meaning of the words you quoted. Delivering a quote does not give you license to spin.
Got anything to say on the actual content of the debate?
Your explanation is simply: God was not surprised because He knew what Adam and Eve had done. So God knew what was going to happen. God created Adam, Eve and the serpent and then watched unfold what he knew would unfold. He set them up. And the punishment had nothing to do with God being disappointed? He was pleased things worked out as he knew they would??
God knew. So what is the point of watching Adam & Eve fail since God knew all along what was going to happen? Omniscient God sets up His naïve creations for failure. A non-omniscient God is surprised by his creations disobedience. You are sticking with a God who sets up His creations for failure.
Your arguments are not at all convincing. You just defined a God who sets up His naïve creations for failure. I will be interested to see how you justify that.
How did I become the subject? (Per the point I made to Gordy ... religious debates rarely stick to the actual content but veer off and often get personal.) Just to give you an example, I could easily suggest that you engage in extreme justification of your beliefs; that your beliefs do not change based on the evidence but rather you manipulate the evidence to match your beliefs. I could offer plenty of personal commentary like that. But I do not, because it is counter-productive. So maybe you too should try to not make things personal?
Can we focus on the content and not personal assessments?
Is the Allah character of the Qur'an 'god'? Is the Qur'an divine? Is it too the word of God?
To Muslims, Jesus (who predated Islam by centuries) was an ordinary man - a prophet like Muhammad. No doubt Muslims would claim that the Qur'an has inner wisdom (indeed they claim it is THE true word of god).
Every religion has its religious stories. Every religion has (sometimes strained) justifications. (Albeit one story at a time - the justifications contradict among the stories.) The biblical arguments for God have never been very good and since the religious are stepping on each other's beards in their apologetics zeal, the credibility of any single argument is not very high.
Failure to deliver a strong argument is not the fault of the challenger. The lack of persuasion is not always because the challenger is not trying hard enough to comprehend. Sometimes the argument is weak - even if the believer (the maker of the argument) thinks it is perfectly sensible.
You can think what you like. That doesn't mean you're right.
I'm open to evidence/proof. Got any?
As I said, my conclusions is based on the available evidence.
No, it's not. I've made no mention of my beliefs. If that's what you think, then it's no wonder your understanding and conclusions are wrong. You start from a false premise.
I already addressed that in my post 5.2.3 above.
So I have to say probably every time? I already explained my position and TiG called you out perfectly too. It seems you're just looking for something to nitpick.
What ad hom attack?
Disagree all you want. But you are clearly wrong in your assessment and even maintain that position when it is explained to you why!
And you're the one trying to read more into something than what's actually being said.
Indeed. You hit the nail on the head.
What you do all the time is state what you think the Bible says and expect everyone to agree to the contradiction. You don't seem to grasp the fact that we don't read it the way you do. That is, it doesn't say what you say it does or for the reasons you claim. Yet, even though this has been explained to you a thousand times, you still can't understand why we can't see the contradictions we don't think are there because of your faulty interpretation. It's like you read the instructions on my prescription bottle, which says "take one pill twice daily", and insisting that I'm supposed to take the same pill twice.
What remains fascinating to me is your apparent inability to doubt your infallibility. You read those verses and declare that God was surprised and disappointed. There can be no other explanation, even though what I told you about what those verses meant logically agrees with the Bible narrative as a whole. There is no contradiction. You only see it because you take those verses in isolation.
Yes.
Yes.
Opinion, not a statement of fact. My opinion is that He allowed them to choose. If I have a UPS package on my front porch and you come by and steal it, are caught and punished, did I set you up by having a package on my front porch? Are you going to blame me for the choice you made? Suppose I knew you had a habit of stealing packages? Now is it my fault?
This gets tedious. You state this as if it has been settled that these are the only options. You state this as if I'm supposed to respond within the framework of your wording here, as if these issues are settled.
I already told you God wasn't surprised and I told you why. Nor is it a matter initiative that is being dealt with here. Nice try, though. It is whether God has the right to expect obedience from His creations. He was not pleased with their disobedience, nor was He disappointed because to be disappointed someone or something has to fail to fulfill one's hopes or expectations. God did not hope or expect that they would not fall.
Not what I was thinking. More like blind to anything anyone says that doesn't match what you've already decided. Incapable of seeing things outside your own viewpoint.
No. It had nothing to do with God being disappointed because He wasn't. It had everything to do with disobedience.
No, I don't think so. I think He was heartbroken.
How can we have conversed over these years so often and you have to ask this? How can you not know the answer by now?
Why would I try to justify your point of view?
Seriously? You're going to make this complaint after saying...
I usually quote the scripture. Your explanations often contradict the actual words.
The fact that you read something different than the actual words is glaringly obvious.
Again, that is why I quote the Bible. It forces you to offer an explanation that contradicts the actual words.
I am not the one making major extrapolations and playing with semantics to try to justify an interpretation that defies the actual scripture.
Apparently you do not recognize that your arguments are weak.
Well if God discovers Adam & Eve breaking His rules and punishes them, it is not a stretch to state that God was apparently surprised that they did not follow His rules and disappointed with them (ergo the punishment).
The other explanation that you offered is that God knew they would disobey Him. So God creates Adam & Eve knowing full well they will disobey Him and then when they do, He punishes them and their progeny. A divine setup. That is what you believe?
A divine setup. He knew they would choose to disobey. If He did not know then He would technically be surprised that they did. You need to make up your mind.
If you created me knowing that I would eventually steal the UPS package, then yes that is a divine setup.
If Adam & Eve had a choice then God could not KNOW that they would choose to disobey. Logic does not care about what you want to be true. If God did not know they would disobey then clearly He is not omniscient. Something has to give here.
And your answer has consequences. If God was not surprised then He knew and since He created Adam & Eve he set them up to fail.
Quite capable. But the argument needs to be sound. If you wish to acknowledge that God set Adam & Eve up to fail then the argument you have presented would hold water. Otherwise, you seem to be attempting to have it both ways.
So I lock my dog in a room. My dog knows that she should not pee on the floor. I know she will eventually pee on the floor. Sure enough she pees on the floor. I now find her and punish her disobedience.
How can God be heartbroken if He knew they would disobey?
Absolutely! Making a comment about religious debates in general is entirely different from making the person with whom you are debating the topic. See?
Best of luck, TiG.
Here is how the debate ended before you ran about on other posts complaining of unfair treatment. Complaining that you were ignored.
I submit the near line-by-line response of mine @5.2.24 as obvious rebuttal to your complain that I ignored what you wrote. My posts prior to that were equally detailed and responsive to what you wrote.
Although I am used to it, you are the one doing the ignoring. For example, just look at this easy to understand piece at the end:
You have argued that God was not disappointed with Adam & Eve yet you see no logical problem labeling His 'emotion' as 'heartbroken'. God was not disappointed, He was heartbroken?? Do you find that to be a persuasive argument that God was not disappointed in Adam & Eve? Further, since you argue that God knew Adam & Eve would disobey Him, then how could He be heartbroken? God created Adam & Eve knowing full well they would disobey Him. Do you not see the logical problem with your explanation?
And this is just one simple example.
Are you arguing that only people who didn't see a thing coming can be heartbroken? That being heartbroken only occurs due to a surprise? If so, how would you describe something someone feels when they know something is coming, can't be avoided and feels that crushing despair when it finally happens?
In case you don't know the definition of heartbroken:
While a negative surprise can result in heartbreak it isn't the being a surprise that causes the heartbreak. It is the event itself, although not seeing it coming can make it worse. So, your move. Let's see you argue that heartbreak is only the result of a surprise.
Yes, it sure is.
No. I am arguing that God created Adam, Eve and the serpent, Eden (the entire scene) knowing (taking your hypothesis) that Adam & Eve would disobey Him. So since God set up the situation and knew exactly how it would play out, how do you get to 'heartbroken'?
Further, how can you claim God was heartbroken and also claim he was not disappointed?
Are you bringing god down to the level of a regular person?
You do not see the illogic of a supposedly omniscient god being surprised?
Emotional.
It's rather amusing that an omnipotent, omniscient deity would have the same petty emotions as us mere mortals and be heartbroken over an expected event, much less be "surprised" by anything.
So you agree with TiG's analysis and see no problem with that?
If an outcome is guaranteed to happen 100%, there is no choice. A "choice" cannot be made to change the outcome. Unless god was not omniscient.
Genesis is the creation of human beings. If they were communicated to by "God", it was in the form of a "moral to the story".
In those days, and even today, some people conceived of the almighty as "Father", likely connected as the source of life everywhere just as human fathers are the source of life to their offspring. The Genesis story describes God's reaction to earthly events, from the human point of view of the author(s) of Genesis. If Genesis was actually written from "God's" point of view as a timeless endless and all powerful and all encompassing entity, it is doubtful that human beings could make heads or tails of the message.
To say that the text of Genesis proves there is no God, or is even evidence that there is no God, is beyond silly.
Again, you claim that which I have not posited.
I have not claimed that Genesis proves there is no god or even brings forth evidence that there is no god. Why do you refuse to read what I write?
I know what you are saying. Which is that the God of Genesis cannot be God because disappointment is not an emotion identified with pre-knowledge of the outcome. If I 100% knew the Rams were going to lose the Superbowl then I couldn't be described as "disappointed" when it happened. I get that.
My point is that "so what"?
The descriptions of God's reactions in Genesis are man made, and thus do not necessarily accurately describe the behavior of God.
End of story (in this case).
On this point I am saying that an omniscient entity cannot be disappointed. Now, here is the key ....
That is a logical contradiction in the definition of the character. The character, as defined, is self-refuting and thus is impossible.
A god may still exist, but it would not be the character defined in the Bible.
Um, sure seems like it. You said...
Since.... then...
Since God could not be surprised (God knew Adam and Eve would disobey Him)...
Then how could God be heart broken?
Can you not see that you are connecting the ability to be heartbroken to being surprised?
But let me help you. I'll pose the question you are actually trying to ask. Instead of asking...
What you apparently want to ask is...
If God created the players and the situation to play out the way it did, how can God be heartbroken? Is that about it?
Nobody is arguing with you concerning that.
The opening paragraph of my post:
Now compare this with your paraphrase:
Why were you motivated to paraphrase when your question virtually matches what I wrote? Why not just answer the question? And do not forget the 'God knew' part.
By the way, this is not my main question ... it is a question after you introduced the emotion of heartbroken instead of disappointed. Thus let's also look at my second paragraph:
It would be good if you would answer that too.
Kind of my point Drakk. John is arguing something I did not posit.
Although I am quite surprised that you tacitly agree with my conclusion:
No, the opening paragraph to your post was...
… and that is what I responded to. Now you want to make out that your follow up post was actually the one I was responding to? Nice.
Because my paraphrase of what you apparently meant, rather than said, more accurately describes the real question you wanted to ask. You are not, in fact, asking "If God knew... then how could he...". It doesn't virtually match what you said. It's different.
Simply saying "and the situation played out the way it did" still doesn't convey what I had to figure out your actual meaning to be. It doesn't put the responsibility on God as I felt you intended, but just says it played out. That is why I didn't really paraphrase what you said. I made an effort to state the actual question I felt you intended to ask to get rid of the ambiguity.
You are actually asking why God would feel heartbroken for an event He caused. There is a difference between knowing and causing. I have argued, because of what you actually said, that knowing doesn't preclude heartbrokenness.
But in order to answer your real question, you first have to establish that God caused the situation. Can you do that?
Last time I'm going to explain it.
The fact that He knew it would happen doesn't preclude His heartbrokenness when the event actually happens. A fahter who's daughter is in the hospital with a week to live doesn't preclude him from heartbrokenness when it happens simply because it was expected.
God was not disappointed because He had not hopes or expectations that things would not turn out as He foresaw.
Perhaps it would help if you explained why He could not be heartbroken if He was not disappointed?
I don't know why you would be. I totally agree that God cannot be disappointed and be omniscient.
Yes, it would be.
Ah, I see the problem, now. The character, as defined by your view. You believe God was disappointed and therefore a logical contradiction. I'm afraid I read it as...
The character, as defined (a disappointed God), is self-refuting.
I was agreeing that if God were disappointed then He would be self-refuting concerning omniscience, not that God was actually disappointed. I was agreeing with your logic chain, in other words. Does that clear it up?
Are you going to argue about everything? I purposely pointed to my answer.
Do you actually think you know what I mean to say better than I do? That explains this nonsense interplay. I write what I mean and you answer what you think I meant to say. Try to avoid presuming to know what I mean and presuming I am ill equipped to articulate my own thoughts.
I did not write that; those words better match what you wrote. Almost identical. What you wrote:
What I wrote:
Confused?
Stop presuming. Ambiguity, eh? God created everything. God knows everything. God causes everything. God is the first cause. Right?
If you were paying attention, you would know that I established upfront that God created the situation and all the players knowing what would happen. That is causation and knowledge. Remember this?:
I have repeated this theme throughout. God creates all, God knows all. God set up Adam & Eve to fail. If you insist on 'God knows all' (which is why it is there) then God set them up to fail.
You entirely missed that part?? Did that first a long time ago. Read above. ⬆
When I repeatedly wrote of God doing all the creating and note that this was a setup it never registered with you that I was speaking of God's omnipotence?
That is not the question; the question is actually more of the opposite. But forget that. The problem clearly is that you somehow completely missed the idea that God being the omnipotent creator of everything and having full (omniscience) knowledge of exactly what His creations would do means that God is in knowing control of things. Again, way back @ 5.2.16 :
God set up the situation with full knowledge of what would take place. Knowing control; a set-up. How can God be heartbroken given He was in total control (omnipotent creator) of the situation from the beginning and knew what would take place (from the beginning)? If God was heartbroken then He certainly could have engineered a different situation from the beginning.
Or are you going to claim that God is limited - that God can know exactly what His creations would do but is incapable of creating them in such a way that they would NOT break His heart?
It seems that at times you want God to be the grandest possible entity and other times (like now) you want to ignore the consequences of omnipotence and omniscience. That is illogical and will produce illogical conclusions.
Good grief Drakk. If one engineers a particular outcome and knows full well what will take place upfront, 'heartbreak' is not an option. It is not possible to be 'heartbroken' by something totally within your control and knowledge.
Did the father engineer the conditions that brought about his daughter's death? Your analogy misses a critical element: control.
So you agree with the logic. Good.
And the consequence of your 'God knew Adam & Eve would disobey Him so He was not disappointed' is that God set Adam & Eve up to fail. As I have repeatedly noted.
God created everything: Eden, serpent, Adam, Eve, .... The creator is in control. The creator knew at the point of creation what would happen. Yet the creator created things as they were nonetheless. And, of course, Adam & Eve disobey (as God knew they would) so he bans and curses them. A divine setup.
God was not disappointed, per your logic, because things worked out exactly as He knew they would.
... but that means ...
God set Adam & Eve up to fail
... because ...
God had knowing (omniscience) control (omnipotence) of the situation from inception.
Incorrect. While it is true that God was not disappointed, it isn't true that God set them up to fail. To set them up to fail would mean no other outcome but failure was possible. That wasn't the case. God did not make them choose one way or the other. He played no part in that beyond allowing them the choice.
That isn't what happened. It was possible Eve could have rejected Satan's words and turned away from him. God did not control her choice beyond giving her the ability to make the choice. That he knew what her choice would be doesn't mean she really had no choice any more than that because I know what Napoleon did at Waterloo means he had no choice at that point in history just because I know it now.
So, really, all you are doing is blaming God for allowing Eve to make the choice that she did. That isn't setting anyone up for failure.
Um, yeah, except you can't get it through your head that I don't agree with your insistence that this was totally within God's control. God doesn't control one's free will. It defeats the purpose of having given the free will in the first place. So, good grief, TiG. Figure it out that it is useless for the purpose of this discussion to say "If one engineers a particular outcome" to someone who doesn't believe it was engineered. You say it as if it's a given. It isn't.
We've had this conversation, too. In it you yourself agreed that God is limited. Have you forgotten?
You just don't get it. if god knew Adam & Eve would disobey him in advance, then there was no other possible choice or outcome. If they had a real choice, then god should not know exactly which choice would be made. But that is not the case with an omniscient deity. Therefore, god deliberately set them up to fail.
Not if god already knew for certain that was the outcome, even before he created them.
Yes, it does. If the outcome is known and predetermined with absolute certainty, then there is no other alternative and no way to change that outcome. There was no "choice" to begin with.
All you're doing is making excuses for god or giving him a free pass.
Are you suggesting that god, an omnipotent and omniscient entity, was not in control? Or that he didn't control the events that would lead to what transpired, even before he created them?
An omnipotent, omniscient god negates the possibility of free will.
Actually, you don't. Because you can't understand that God could know and they still had a choice doesn't eliminate it as an option just because you don't understand.
So, then. Because you know what Napoleon did at Waterloo means he had no choice but to act as he did? This is obviously not true. If we can understand something as simple as this, why do you continue to claim that there is no choice?
I am stating that God did not control what a person chose to do by their own free will.
I love the way you just make a claim without pointing out the reasoning behind it. It's as if you think simply making the statement is enough.
My guess is that you do not understand that if omniscience is possible then reality is deterministic. If it is possible to know the future (regardless of who actually knows) then free will is impossible. So if God knew what Adam & Eve were going to do then their choices were known well before they made them. They had no choice.
To have a choice it must be possible to influence the causal chain. Choice means changing the future. Changing the future means the future cannot be known.
See above. If it is possible to know the future, it is not possible to change that future by choice. Free will is entirely incompatible with a knowable future.
Our last conversation was about an abstract supreme entity and in that context I clearly explained why the supreme entity is limited unless that supreme entity is existence itself. In prior conversations, when talking about 'God' (as in the God of the Bible) you would find me arguing that the God of the Bible could not possibly be as grand as described. Omniscience alone is a self-refuting characteristic.
In other conversations we have discussed things such as God educating His creations and you came back with the exclamation that God might not actually be omnipotent. That was a rather interesting point since you were equivocating on the biblical definition of God to try to explain (ultimately) why bad things happen to good people.
So we have talked about a lot of things. What is your specific position now? Are you going to claim that God really does not have the power to create Adam & Eve, the serpent, Eden, etc. in a manner that would not result in the fall from grace?
A knowable future = deterministic reality = no choice
If god knows, in advance, what "choice" will be made, then there is no other alternative that can be chosen. God created them knowing what would happen and what "choice" they will make. The outcome was predetermined. "Choice" in that instance is just an illusion. The only way a real choice can be made is if god did not know the outcome of what he created.
Nice Strawman. There's a big difference between Napoleon and an omnipotent, omniscient god who set the stage and all factors himself.
The thing is, there was no free will. It was already predetermined. It all transpired according to how god established it.
See my first statement above. But TiG says it best and most simplistic below: "A knowable future = deterministic reality = no choice"
absolutely true - freewill can only be achieved if the elements of surprise and chance are present - there has to be a chance that someone will make a choice that will surprise you (being unexpected), this scenario is completely impossible with an all-knowing God.
there is almost certainly no god.
I guess that depends on a persons definition of GOD.
GOD to me is whatever arranged al the atoms top be everything that is.
I know no more, dont feel I need to.
well i sure wish this God character would hurry up and get here... the religious have been clamoring on for hundreds of years about God and some kind of second coming (boy does that sound dirty...) and then fire and brimstone or some apocalyptic event or something -- yet nothing has happened.
If nothing else, that seems like a good indication that their god doesn't actually give a crap whether or not people believe in it or worship it - it's not the egotistical dick the religious fanatics claim it is. If it really had such a monstrous ego, it could certainly do something to show people that it exists, and to convince the 2/3 of all people who believe in different gods that it is the real one.
Religious fanatics love to tell me that their god will torture for eternity anyone who doesn't believe in it, or who doesn't worship it. If it were actually like that, that would make it an egotistical dick.
Many religious people (such as my Mom, who was a deacon) view the concept of hell as simply being separated from god and not with it for eternity, which is NOT the action of an egotistical dick - more like, OK, you don't want anything to do with me, so you won't be with me. Which would be a much more reasonable response, IMO, and one that doesn't involve an oversized ego. I can't imagine why a god would be the epitome of some of the pettiest human emotions, such as ego and jealousy, anyway. I doubt people think they'll experience jealousy or ego issues in Heaven, so why would they think their god has these imperfect qualities?
Oh, stop playing games of semantics. Of course a religious fanatic isn't going to call their god an egotistical dick, any more than they're going to call it an abusive father. But their descriptions of how it supposedly act clearly support such terms.
You know perfectly well that Katrix did not state that religious fanatics call their god an 'egotistical dick'. The religious fanatics she refers to claim their god will condemn non-believers to eternal suffering in Hell - simply because they did not believe in and worship the god. The claim of eternal damnation is made by the fanatics and katrix considers a god so-described to be an 'egotistical dick'.
Word games are no substitute for intellectual debate. Instead of trying to tease out a contradiction from English grammar, it would be more valuable to debate katrix on her position. Her position, by the way, is that the god of the Bible is interpreted by many to be one who will condemn those who do not meet His requirements to suffer for all of eternity in Hell. Do you disagree? Why?
Since I don't think you're a stupid person, I can only assume that you're being deliberately obtuse.
You seem perfectly adept at ignoring the explanation I just provided.
You even called this an 'outlandish statement'. That should have been your first clue that you were reading her words wrong. Yet even after katrix clarified her position you cling to your deliberate misinterpretation.
Rise above slimy word games - engage in honest, thoughtful debate.
As you just pointed out, words are words. I'm guessing you know what both of those words mean, and that you're capable of combining them to determine what a religious fanatic is.
Oh well. So much for that attempt. Some people would rather be deliberately obtuse than engage in an actual discussion, and apparently have never encountered descriptive terms before.
The key is "excessive zeal." I don't think any of the three things you mentioned would necessarily make someone a religious fanatic. The first and second, definitely not - the third, maybe, depending on how they go about it.
That's pretty funny. Especially since you have since stated...
Seems your accusing Texan of doing what you do with scripture. Just look at the actual words without any thought to what was actually meant. Even though that is literally what she said. She literally said " it's not the egotistical dick the religious fanatics claim it is."
What? Now you want to bring context into it? Why now? Why not actually treat it all the same and stick with what she actually said???
Gosh, doesn't that sound familiar? I gave you a perfectly good explanation of why God was neither surprised and disappointed but you ignored it because "Your explanations often contradict the actual words... " Well, your explanation contradict her actual words. Are you going to fault Texan for what you yourself do?
You are stooping to compare an 'inerrant' Bible whose words are ostensibly carefully crafted with deep meaning to a post on a forum which did not have a perfect sentence structure. Katrix' meaning was obvious yet, just like Texan, you are playing games to try to find some angle to fabricate a claim of hypocrisy.
Not your best contribution.
Given I offered a near line-by-line response to your posts, quoting you at every step, your claim that I ignored what you wrote is demonstrably false.
In summary (summary: meaning not covering all the details here), you repeatedly claimed that God was not surprised and disappointed that Adam & Eve disobeyed Him because He knew that they were going to do so. Taking your 'God is omniscient' explanation, I pointed out that since God created Adam, Eve and the serpent and that God knew what they would do, then God simply set up Adam & Eve to fail. And you inexplicably deny that God's cursing of all three, driving Adam & Eve from the garden and applying the curse to all of their progeny does not mean that God was disappointed.
You never responded to my specific point about how your story means God setup Adam & Eve. I, however, responded quite specifically to what you wrote.
Don't do a Valerie and run about on other posts complaining that you are being mistreated in debate. If you have a problem my rebuttal than quote and rebut. If you think I am ignoring a critical point then make the claim at that point. Give a quote and force the issue. We likely will end up disagreeing, but if you are seriously trying to make a point and there is something I have actually not addressed (what you label as 'ignore') then I am happy to opine.
But if you make a point and I respond with a rebuttal or a challenge don't cry foul simply because I disagree or because I do not find your argument to be very good.
That might be compelling if you could define what such evidence or proof would look like. Since you can't, this point is irrelevant.
This false claim is offered as a subset/support of the first. There is plenty of evidence, which you well know. However, you have decided that evidence is insufficient or of a type you don't like. You're free to have that opinion, but to say there is not "any evidence" is objectively false.
This is an incorrect application of the idea of circular argument. Any historical document is evidence of something, even if it's no more than "some person wrote this." The Bible can certainly be evidence (or proof if you like) of God. There's nothing circular about that. Stories about George Washington or Julius Caesar are evidence that those people existed. That's not circular. A circular argument for the Bible would be along the lines of "the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true."
If such a statement were the only thing about the Bible that supported its veracity, then we would have only a circular argument to support that claim. However, the Bible is much more than that. First of all, it's not just one source. It's about 40 sources. The Bible is properly conceived of as an anthology, not a single work. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that one "book" of the Bible corroborates some other book. Second, it is full of historical detail that can be corroborated by sources outside of the Bible. Is every historical detail of the Bible corroborated this way? No, of course not, but that would be true for any large and ancient collection, and in any event does not invalidate the corroboration that does exist.
Popular opinion is not universally fallacious. It depends on how it's used.
The ubiquity of theism - particularly in diverse ancient people - need not be employed as proof of God, but is compelling enough to be deserving of inquiry. We should be curious about the fact that so many isolated cultures believed in some kind of deity. Atheists tend to dismiss this as some kind of inevitable behavior of humans but what would be the evolutionary benefit? In any event, there is no real cause and effect type proof for that kind of thing. It becomes a chicken or egg debate. Did people around the world believe in God because they evolved to think in those ways or did God design them that way so they could be aware of him?
This depends on so many things.
First, we have to talk about the nature of the claims themselves. The flood for example. Is it allegory or science? Why do so many cultures have flood stories? Don't we say where there's smoke there's fire? Is it proper to interpret the flood story as encompassing the whole Earth as we know it today? or as the ancients would have perceived it? Much of Genesis (also Daniel) uses the phrase "the whole Earth." Sometimes this can be the planet, but other times it pretty clearly refers to an area no more substantial than what we call the Fertile Crescent. It may be idiomatic, so while the flood could be literal, the scope may not be.
Second, is the scientific standard offered. Since when is not finding a thing proof that it doesn't exist? Science makes many pronouncements based on minuscule bits of evidence and we're all just fine with that. For example, the Troodon was described - scientifically - as a lizard based on a single tooth.
Then scientists thought it looked like this:
The answer to a scientific lack of evidence is: keep looking.
Third, what is it you think you are trying to prove or disprove? Not everything in the Bible is intended to be historical fact. Some of it clearly is intended as a historical chronicle, to be sure, but some of it is clearly intended to be poetic. And some of it is not so clear. Scholars from antiquity to the present disagree about which is which. Origen, Augustine, and Martin Luther all saw parts of the Bible as metaphor not to be taken literally. So you're engaging in a bit of a straw man if you think disproving a 100% literal Bible somehow disproves the existence of God.
Which was his point.
None of this corroborates biblical divinity. Again, that was Gordy's point.
Yes it does depend on how it is used. And Gordy illustrated a usage that is indeed fallacious: "Third, theists sometimes say that most of the world's population worships a deity of some kind and that must be enough to prove there's a god. Except that is an argumentum ad populum fallacy."
Yes we should. But we do not leap to the conclusion that a popular trait among human beings means that their god exists. A more appropriate course, for example, is to investigate what prompts people to deem god(s) as explanations for the inexplicable.
You are now flirting with the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. If we do not have a conclusive evolutionary explanation for the human propensity to find 'gods' that would simply mean that we do not have that explanation. It does not mean that there is a god.
True. Apparently God also designed people who would not be aware of him. 'Designs' who would look for credible evidence and, until it is found, will not simply conclude that stories told to them by other human beings are divine truth.
A worldwide flood as described in Genesis is a violation of science and logic. It is an allegory.
Gordy made no such claim. Strawman (and a cliche one at that).
Correct. Also, science never declares certainty. Science is a process of continuous refinement of our never-ending approximation of truth.
Gordy did not say that an errant Bible disproves God. He stated this: "So if biblical claims can be discredited by science, then it shows the bible is fallible (as it was written by fallible men) and thus diminishes the validity of various biblical claims, including any claim for a god."
I think you should let Gordy speak for himself. Assigning fabricating meanings to words is not honest. You may want to pretend he was making a certain point, but he wrote something else.
No, his point was that using the Bible as evidence for God is a circular argument and because it's a logical fallacy, we should disregard it.
This is something you both do very often, by the way. Rather than delve deeply into the content of someone's argument, you label it a logical fallacy and dismiss it on that ground alone. Then you complain that no one wants to debate you.
Anyway, as I pointed out, it's not a circular argument. The Bible is a collection of documents. You might think it's not good evidence, but it's not a circular argument.
He offered no evidence that anyone argues that popular belief by itself constitutes proof of God, much less that the argument is made by any significant group of "theists" This makes it potentially a straw man. I offered an alternative use for the observation as explained.
Oh look: another claim of logical fallacy. How unsurprising. Keeps you from actually having to deal with someone else's argument.
I didn't say it did.
God gives people eyes, but they aren't always willing to see.
Yeah he kinda did.
The only scientific evidence offered that the Flood didn't happen is that science hasn't been able to substantiate it. In other words, science can't confirm it, so it didn't happen. He claims without evidence that science can refute it. These are Gordy's words, not mine.
Then maybe refrain from calling something BS or imaginary. If you want to live in the land of no unequivocal conclusions, stop making them.
Then why keep going on about it if its errancy or inerrancy is not relevant?
This wouldn't be valid anyway. Finding fault with A does not disprove B, especially when biblical scholars have, for centuries, said that the whole Bible is not meant to be taken literally.
Ask Gordy if he thinks I am preventing him from opining.
I think that is what you did.
His point was that we should disregard the Bible as proof of God. So we agree on that, right?
More personal allegations.
The circular argument is this: ( Bible is true ⇆ God exists )
Make up your mind. You claimed his argument was fallacious. It is not. Now you change your complaint and claim that he did not back up his claim with evidence (e.g. statistics). Which is it?
I noted that you were moving to an appeal to ignorance. Note: I dealt with your argument in the sentences that immediately followed my note:
You ignored my content so that you could register a gratuitous claim.
Kind of a big deal, eh? A worldwide flood would be a catastrophic event and we cannot find anything that corroborates it. Further, we have plenty of knowledge that raises damning questions such as how an ark made of wood - larger than any other seaworthy vessel in history - could possibly withstand the forces of sea travel for almost a year. Among many others.
Gordy is free to characterize as he sees fit. He has the right to his opinion. You are conflating personal opinion with certainty and conflating personal opinion with the findings of science. You present a rather confused argument ... at the best.
Because an errant Bible is not divine. An errant Bible cannot be trusted to be 'true'. An errant Bible is not the product of a perfect God. A claim of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, ... God by an errant Bible is not to be trusted. See?
Of course not. Taking the Bible literally immediately exposes its flaws. One must make the Bible fuzzy and malleable to even have a chance to explain away its problems.
TiG can speak for me if he wishes, especially when he is correct. Besides, he is much more articulate than I.
Yes, that is correct.
We label it what it is, a logical fallacy. Why should a logical fallacy be worthy of consideration when it is inherently flawed?
Who's complaining?
Using the bibloe to prove or support the claims made within or on behalf of the bible is the model circular argument, and is not valid evidence.
I said "proof" of a god via popular belief is a logical fallacy. Neither does popular belief substantiate any claim for a god.
Perhaps if you made a valid argument rather than logical fallacies, there would be something of substance to deal with.
Religious rhetoric.
"Kinda?" Specify where!
If there is no evidence for it, then there is no reason to assume such an event (a mass extinction event at that) happened, much less assert that it did. Current geological evidence discredits any claim to a biblical level flood.
Why? I call it like it is! No where did I say science calls it "BS" or "imaginary!"
Because many theists use the bible to support their assertions regarding god or as actual proof of one. If the source is flawed, then it cannot be trusted or valid and any conclusions and assertions drawn from it may also be flawed.
Many theists and scholars say the bible is to be taken literally (the "literal word of god"). They can't even agree on that much. But if it is not supposed to be taken literally, then that leaves it subject to many (and often conflicting) interpretations or preferences. That diminishes any validity to any claims the bible makes, or to claims based on the bible.
Hardly. Such proof would be objective, empirical, verifiable, and falsifiable. You know, the way real proof should be.
Such as? be specific! The only "evidence" ever offered is either subjective and anecdotal or based on logical fallacies. Such "evidence" is not valid.
No, that is a perfect application of a circular argument.
It's evidence someone wrote something. That alone does not validate any of the claims or stories that are written.
It's not.
The bible is proof of god because the bible says so. That is a circular argument!
God is real because the bible says so-again, circular!
You're the one who said biblical scholars have said the bible should not be taken literally. So which parts of the bible collaborates other sources, or vice versa? Which parts are valid claims or explanations? That's a lot of gray area. The bible is a collection of stories and myths, lacking anything of substance to back it up outside of because "someone said so."
So how is popular opinion supposed to be used when the majority of people believe god is real? Popular opinion is still just that-an opinion, and does not validate anything.
Theism basically posits there is a god/s. Just because ancient people and different cultures had different theistic beliefs and practices no more validates any claims or beliefs in god/s then than it does now. All it means is people believed in god/s in the past much like they do now. But that does not prove anything.
Allegory.
Because many cultures spread or borrowed stories from others or may have experiences similar events themselves.
No. It is illogical and contradicted by science.
Different perceptions or interpretations would cast doubt on the veracity of biblical claims, god included.
If there is no evidence for something, there is no logical reason to assume that something is real or true. Evidence is needed to support (or refute) any such assertion/s for something. Science goes where the evidence leads.
I never said i was trying to prove or disprove anything.
So again, how does one pick out what is relevant? Your statement only affirms what i said about the lack of veracity or validity of the bible.
I never said disproving the bible disproves god. I said using the bible to prove god is circular reasoning/argument.
Are you going to be intellectually honest enough to admit that they have very little evidence (a tooth) but they also admit that anthropologists are going on little evidence? Every time that more evidence comes to like the theory changes, unlike religious belief. They aren't making outrageous unproven claims based on blind faith and belief like the Bible does.
Same garbage as we heard from TiG. Attack people's honesty from the get-go.
how would that work ? would it be possible to prove that Leprechauns, Unicorns, Medusa and BigFoot don't exist ? do you believe in Leprechauns, Unicorns, Medusa and BigFoot as well ? They all have books written about them...
I have not made any comment regarding your honesty.
Although you are demonstrating the point I made to Gordy. As soon as a strong challenge appears the focus veers from the content and into meta and other deflections such as fabricating attacks. Seems one must endure a ton of deflective tactics compared to get precious little quality debate.
Haven't you now? Do you really want a history lesson on your comments in this thread?
First some context:
5.2: Gordy says something
5.2.1: I responded to that comment.
5.2.2: You responded to my comment.
5.2.3: Gordy responds to me
5.2.4: Gordy responds to your 5.2.2 and begins talking about his debates with theists. Based on the context, I reasonably assume this includes me.
5.2.5: You respond to Gordy on the same topic, saying:
Again, I reasonably assume based on context that this is includes me. If not, you could have made that disclaimer. You also went after Texan's honesty in 7.2.9 so maybe it's a thing with you.
I guess I could have flagged it, but I thought I'd try to make you see reason and urge you to stick to the topic. Instead you're just going to deny you even engage in it. Too bad.
And I have already explained this to you. Which makes it even worse that you keep spinning.
My comment was about my history of religious debates. Gordy @5.2.4 opened a commentary on religious debates and I responded to him. You are spinning to try to make this about you.
Truly ironic given I have been asking you to actually engage in debate rather than this pointless meta.
Follow that chain of comments after 5.2 and tell me which of the two of us went to meta. Me? or You? Whose comment was on the topic of Gordy's article? Yours? or Mine?
Make a comment on the actual debate.
In case you forgot, in the actual debate my last comment was: TiG @9.1.2
You have not responded. Do have anything to say on the content itself?
I've made a few actually.
I didn't see anything there that I felt required or warranted a response from me.
I see — the actual debate content ceases to be relevant; time is instead spent on various forms of diversions. This is what typically happens in religious debates.
Okay, Tacos!, I get it. Later.
Your sweeping generalization aside, If you feel this discussion is not progressing to your satisfaction, you are free to go elsewhere and not post here.
A logical expectation when someone makes a declarative statement.
Then don't make declarative statements.
Good, because doing so would be a logical fallacy, as one cannot prove the nonexistence of something.
The same way it would work for god.
Belief in something does not make it real or true.
That's your mistake. You see, this is how these debates go with them.
Them: Some argument that draws a conclusion about X where X is defined to be a certain thing.
Us: Explain why their conclusion is wrong because X has been defined incorrectly or is not proven to be as they claim.
Them: Ignore explanation and reiterate ad nauseum why their conclusion is correct. That is, insist X is what they say it is and ignore attempts to discuss it. Keep repeating conclusion.
You see, this is how these debates go with them.
Debating the existence of things that show no evidence of existing can be a tiresome process. Leprechauns, Bigfoot, Lochness, God, compassionate conservatives ... these are all figments of the imagination.
What if your explanation does not actually show why the conclusion is wrong. What if your explanation simply denies the conclusion and supports it with a mere story? It is one thing to actually demonstrate a flaw with facts and logic. Telling a story (especially if said story is logically flawed) is not much of a rebuttal.
What if the explanation is taken apart with specific quotes and rebutted with facts and logic? Is that ignoring? And if the claim is repeatedly made, is a repeated rebuttal reiterating ad nauseum or dealing with a claim that is repeated ad nauseum?
If you see a flaw in my rebuttal then correct it. I have left you several challenges which you truly have ignored: you did not respond to them. In particular, if God created Adam & Eve (we agree on this) and God knew that they would disobey Him (your hypothesis) then God clearly set Adam & Eve up to fail.
I offered an imperfect analogy to get the point across. This is imperfect because I did not create my dog nor am I omniscient. That said, I place my dog in a closed room. She knows that she is not to pee in the house. I know she will eventually pee. She pees. I was not surprised or disappointed that she peed because I knew she would in those circumstances. I set her up to fail. Unlike God, I am not going to punish her for doing what I knew she would do given the circumstances I created.
If God knew Adam & Eve were going to disobey Him then since God holds all the cards, God set them up to fail.
If someone makes a claim - especially one as grand as 'God exists' - then that claim bears the burden of proof / evidence.
You are complaining that someone challenges you to provide evidence for a grand claim.
A certain claim bears the burden of proof / evidence. This is debate 101.
Does not matter. If you articulate a certain claim (of anything) in a public forum, that claim comes with the burden of proof / evidence.
Of course not. That does not change reality though: any claim of certainty bears the burden of proof / evidence.
I do not feel I am owed anything. Do you truly not understand the concept of burden of proof? Here, I wrote an article on it: Burden of Proof
Why are you making this personal?
Only in Politics !
"I do not feel I am owed anything."
Yet you say:
"A claim bears the burden of proof / evidence."
No where on this planet is there a "LAW" that says a "Belief" Requires "Proof" to satisfy "ANYONE" !
The "ALMOST" certainly isn't a God part of the title, must drive you crazy !
Gives one all sorts of Latitude to "Bluster" without any requirement of "Proof" !
That does not even make sense.
Correct. See, that is how it works. A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof. My claim does indeed bear the burden of proof. See?
Lame
Yes. My opinion based on a well-established principle of debate.
I don't. But if you make a claim of certainty such as 'my God exists', that claim bears the burden of proof. You can look up 'burden of proof' and will find myriad explanations of this very obvious, very well-known concept.
A law? Like in legislation?
Are you truly unaware of the principle of burden of proof? Never heard of it? Totally foreign idea?
Burden of "Proof" is only required when under "Law" !
Layman to Layman, your thoughts are your thoughts.....period !
Then you do not understand debate.
Doesn't seem to enter some's realms. They just have to argue for arguments sake !
There was a kid when I was in high school, who I actually tried to be friends with. YOU COULDN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION with him though, because no matter what you talked to him about, he insisted on being technical about EVERYTHING, and demanded proof about anything and everything you talked to him about.
SAD to say….he NEVER was a FRIEND !
You are now on an entirely different topic.
You should read up on the burden or proof for yourself. You should be familiar with this concept if you plan to make claims of certainty in a debate forum.
You are now really off on a tangent.
I do !
And I also understand when it's a pointless endeavor too !
On and On, On and On, On and On !
You and I are discussing burden of proof. You knew that, right?
Look, you can even go to Wikipedia to get a basic primer on the concept of burden of proof . Best you read on your own.
And....what is an "Acceptable" read ?
I gave no permission for anything. I just stated a simple fact.
Then don't complain when someone challenges you to prove a declarative statement.
See previous statement.
Apparently, there are those who seem to have difficulty with the concept of a logical fallacy.
Definitive stories about mythical things.
But you have claimed a belief in a god. So my statement stands.
As I said before, it's a logical expectation when someone makes a declarative statement. I don't know why believers seem to take such an issue with that.
"Proof" isn't based on a feeling or subject to a popularity contest. Just because you consider something to be proof doesn't make it valid. Some do not even understand what constitutes valid proof.
Some believers seem to get offended when their beliefs and claims are challenged.
That would be nice. But in the absence of that, something objective and empirical (actual proof) would be good too.
If you make the claim here, expect to be challenged to "prove it," regardless if it's only for yourself.
No one said you were. It only shows your claim is otherwise an empty one and lacks any validity or credibility.
Because you make an affirmative claim. See how that works?
No need to get personal.
He happens to be correct.
Then why are we having this discussion?
Are yo not familiar with the principles of logical debate?
His fact!
But you do seem to get defensive and irate when your belief is challenged.
Then why are you here arguing?
That is not the intention. What you seemingly fail to understand is that affirmative claims bear the burden of proof and a demand for proof is a logical expectation. You may say it's just your belief, but when you posit your belief as fact, then that invites the burden of proof and no one is wrong to challenge you on that when you makes such claims.
Nope. That's just an erroneous presumption on your part.
You do realize the undertones of the discussion revolves around the burden of proof, right? And yes, if one makes an affirmative claim, they bear the burden of proof. That's logical debate 101.
No, in science and in real life in general.
it's not the belief itself. It's the affirmation of a belief as fact or as a declarative statement of certainty that requires proof. You can say you believe and that's fine/. But once you make a claim of certainty based on belief, then that invites the burden of proof.
Why would that be the case?
See first statement!
Oh irony!
Sounds like an intelligent and logical individual.
Interesting. I wonder if Gordy will be by to chide you for making a declarative statement without a supporting proof.
We do see a lot of these seeds. It's like atheists need confirmation for their beliefs and the only way they think they can get it is by starting and "winning" an internet argument. Of course when you design the argument, define the rules, enforce the rules as you see fit, and judge the "winner" all by yourself, it's pretty easy to achieve that affirmation.
Good grief Tacos! Instead of engaging in debate you run to the sidelines and complain.
This is an online forum. A debate consists of people posting to each other. The individual posters have the same level of control.
I submit that the best way to make your point is to actually engage in honest debate. Complaining of imaginary mistreatment and unfair 'rules' from the sidelines is a great way to announce that your position is weak.
Even if that happened, they wouldn't accept it. Even Jesus was rejected in his time. The problem is they have no standard for comparison, no idea how to define God because science hasn't done it for them. And so they waste their time trying to define God for themselves. "If God were real, he'd do X" or "If God were real, he wouldn't allow Y to happen." As if they are in a position to define God.
You want to tell me what I can post now? I responded to Texan. My comment was not a debate point for you. I made the point I wanted to make to the person I wanted to hear it.
I notice that you don't want to debate the content of it. You just want to chastise me for making it. Kinda making my point for me. Still trying to win.
This! That is exactly what is going on with this seed.
Empiricism isn't some magic wand of proof. It's a path to learning. It's not the only path and it's not conclusive 100% of the time because fallible people interpret data incorrectly all the time.
Using my senses to look out the window, I can see the sun come up in the morning and set in the evening. That doesn't mean the sun goes around the Earth.
It's also useless to demand such data with respect to God. You don't have the first clue how to properly apply empirical data to an attempted proof of the existence of God. Why would you? i.e. if the Lord himself showed up, raised some people from the dead, turned your house into a block of cheese and drove the moon from the sky, you still wouldn't have any basis for deciding whether he was God or a really talented alien.
Debate your fabrication? True, I am not going to debate fabrications.
Wrong. My opinion based on the totality of my observations.
Meanwhile, you have declared it conclusively to be a fabrication. No equivocation. No "probably" or "almost certainly" in front of it. Where is your proof TiG? What will be the acceptable standard of proof? Will it be "beyond a reasonable doubt?" We want empirical data. We want a repeatable experiment to confirm your conclusion that it's a fabrication.
If it's a fabrication that must mean you're calling me a liar. Is that a violation? Should I flag your comment?
Either way, that's a pretty grand declaration. How will you prove what's in my mind and my heart? How will you prove intent? You have said repeatedly that grand declarations require proof.
Show us the scientific proof or retract your grand declaration.
These are your "rules for debate" not mine. Time for you to live up (or down) to them.
They are rules of debate; not my rules. And I do bear the burden of proof for my claim of your fabrications.
But I am here to debate / discuss the topic or at least something near it. Proving your fabrications is just adding to your meta diversion.
it would be the same research as doing research about God - correct ? they are all believed in by some people and all have books written about them, correct ?
why do you believe in God yet, don't believe in other mythological creatures like Leprechauns, Unicorns, Medusa or BigFoot ?
very interesting... i knew a similar student in my High School days.. yet he was very popular with lots of friends.. why ? because he knew facts and the truth - he could back up all of his declarative statements with proof. The unpopular ones ? the students who just made wild claims and expected everyone else to believe it as fact without providing any proof whatsoever. Interesting huh ? I guess some people tend to be more interested in logic/facts/proof while others are more interested in just believing wild claims with no logic/facts/proof whatsoever.
I never said it was.
It is the most logical and scientifically reliable tool to obtain as accurate results and conclusions as possible. Why settle for anything less? But for data collection, it allows for different methods of collecting objective data as well as repeatability of collection methods and results.
That is a subjective observation and interpretation. People used to believe the sun went around the earth. But thanks to more observations, greater scientific tools and methods, we have been able to objectively conclude that such "observations" like the sun going around the earth is false. But your statement only demonstrates why objective, empirical evidence is the better, if not best, method of obtaining facts and valid information or conclusions.
Then it is equally useless and intellectually lazy/dishonest to claim there is a god, as there is no data to support such claims in the least.
Start by collecting any objective evidence for a god. Oh right, there is none.
Those would be two possibilities. Until one or the other is ruled out, it cannot be claimed with certainty one is the correct possibilty over the other. And yet, theists are quick to declare there is a god as matter of fact without having any evidence or considering other alternatives. On what basis do they have for declaring god is real or true?
Such a statement is valid until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Or are you entertaining the possibility that such creatures are real?
And you are? What makes your definition or belief in a god valid or true? On what basis do you define god?
What "beliefs" do atheists have exactly?
And yet, here you are arguing. interesting.
We "win" because we follow and utilize logic in our "arguments." So the merits of our "arguments' stands on their own. All you're doing at this point is whining about it.
Whose rules are they then? The Parker Brothers? What are the penalties? Will we go to debate jail if we don't follow the rules in a way you approve of? Which rule is it that says you get to accuse people of fabricating something without having to prove it?
That's convenient. You get to accuse me of lying but you never have to back it up with proof or be held accountable for it in any way because you're just here to debate. Say what you want and then if someone calls you on it, just shout "no meta!"
No one made you accuse me of fabricating anything.
You are unfamiliar with the philosophical burden of proof? Here is my article on it: Burden of Proof. Wikipedia even offers a basic primer on the concept of burden of proof .
You made gratuitous false allegations about me so I naturally called you out on it. If you want to see me back up my claims of certainty then engage in topical debate. If I make a claim of certainty in a debate/discussion then I would bear the burden of proof/evidence and would deliver same (or admit that I cannot do so).
Your meta baiting will not work. Got anything thoughtful to contribute to the topic? My last debate comment to you was TiG @ 9.1.2 ; instead of this emotional meta you could try to rebut my comment.
How so? Anyone who stands on planet Earth and observes the sun in the sky would see it move in the same way. There's nothing about my personal situation or experience that would make that observation different than anyone else's.
Uh huh.
How is that going to help you with God?
No, I think it's intellectually dishonest and lazy for you to repeat the claim that there is no data or evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence and you know it because I have seen several people talk to you about why they believe. You just don't reach the same conclusions based on that evidence that other people do.
You can't reasonably complain about that if you can't define what acceptable evidence would look like.
Again, you can't define how you would rule it out.
There is a difference between saying you don't yet believe in something and declaring that the thing is specifically "a figment of the imagination." That's a certain declaration and yet you don't demand proof. Seems hypocritical.
To a degree that satisfies me, yes. That's what matters. Believe it or not, even when a scientist demonstrates something, not all the other scientists agree with him. So the scientific method is not as universally truth-finding to the satisfaction of all as you would like us to believe.
Because it's entertaining for me. I'm not the one who needed to seed an article. That would be you .
Only in your imagination. You're deluding yourself. You're not winning anything.
Hah! Not nearly as much as you proclaim. That statement right there - bragging about the superiority of your argument style - speaks volumes about a bias that closes your mind to alternative points of view.
Other than unsubstantiated claims by human beings, what evidence do you have in mind?
So these rules are yours and (stifling a giggle) Wikipedia? Say no more.
False sounds like you just think I was wrong. No, you specifically accused me of fabricating something. That's entirely different from being wrong. "Fabrication" means I made the thing up - that I'm a liar. As for being gratuitous, I have already explained that my statements were my personal opinion based on my personal observations. It's apparent to me now that you are so unwilling to stand behind your words that you actually had to change them.
Ah! So you admit there is evidence. Good. You just don't reach the same conclusions based on the evidence that others do.
Define how the claims should be substantiated.
Are you admitting that you are unaware of the philosophical concept known as burden of proof? Are you also unaware of propositional logic, the criteria for a valid and sound argument, the common guidelines for fallacious arguments, etc.
Feigned obtuseness can go only so far before people start laughing.
That is what I figured. You know that people claim UFO abduction, God’s like Zeus, leprechauns, etc. All evidence, eh?
I hate these religious debates because they never go any where, but, people can see the sun differently, depending where on the earth they stand. In some places it can be dark for months.
I'm aware of many things. I am unaware of specific rules published anywhere that define things like burden of proof for conversations on NewsTalkers. I'm sure you are aware that the rules about burdens and standards of proof vary from one forum (and I don't just mean the internet) to another. But you like to try to define the rules for everyone else here.
Once again you attack my honesty. In a moment you'll insist you shouldn't have to answer for it because . . . no meta!
Very true. You can argue that any measure or observation is subjective. The whole objective/subjective thing is really just about coming up with a reason why it would be invalid to question someone else's point of view. You're wrong to debate them, you see, because they deal only in objectivity. Everything you have to offer is subjective and therefore inferior.
Yep!
Yeah. These debates always come down to, God exists, no he doesn't. Prove he does, prove he doesn't. Repeat.
I have said before, I was raised in a religious household. My Grandfather was a Methodist minister. I was living with them (my Grandparents) at a young age.
The way I see it, believe what ever you want (not you in particular) and I can believe what ever I want. I don't worry about it one way or the other, unless one view is being pushed over another.
Your personal observation is what is subjective.
It would help if there was any evidence for a god.
What "evidence?" I have asked for such evidence many times and have yet to get any. People can believe whatever they want. But mere belief is more emotional than factual based. Neither does belief equal fact.
Subjective and anecdotal. The most people can say regarding "evidence" for a god is just a "feeling" or belief. That is not actual objective, empirical evidence.
I already have. you simply do not have any evidence.
Actually, yes. it's either one possibility or another. But there isn't even that much in regards to god.
Until you can demonstrate it's not imaginary, there is no logical reason to assume it's not.
So you go by a feling then. As I said, that is subjective and anecdotal.
Of course not. That's why the scientific method is utilized and repeated observations and experimentations are performed to validate or refute any findings. A scientist would not accept something at face value.
I didn't say it was. I said it is the best method.
So you find arguments entertaining?
Yes, and your point is...?
None, in reality.
Says the guy who believes in a god and can't even prove there is one.
It's not a boast. it's a statement of fact.
What evidence did he admit to? he simply said people make claims. Without evidence, such claims are empty, without merit, and easily dismissed.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
[deleted]
Not even a little.
Just like Zeus, Odin, Thor, ect.. People believed in them at one point too. Doesn't mean they are real.
Where? Where is your definition of acceptable evidence for God?
Prove it.
Yes.
Go back and read the thread. Maybe it will come to you.
My beliefs have no connection to your tendency toward self-delusion nor toward my ability to perceive it. If you were as logical as you think you are, you wouldn't need me to explain that to you.
Prove it.
It's easy for you to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to your preconceptions.
You missed the sarcasm in spite of the obvious context.
Amazing. You admit to not even be aware of the well known philosophical concept of burden of proof. Yet even when you recognize this clear gap in basic information you refuse to consult any sources for edification. Why would anyone do that?
Seriously, what is the benefit of pretending to not know the obvious?
The burden of proof concept is not forum dependent. It is a general principle of debate. Seriously man, do you truly not understand the general philosophical concept known as burden of proof??
If you consider mere words from a human being as evidence of existence then by your abysmal standard there is evidence for anything that can be imagined — just need to have some human beings state words that the fiction is real and you have Tacos!-quality evidence.
That pretty much dilutes all meaning from the concept of evidence. By your standards, we have evidence that the Earth is flat; that the Earth is 6,000 years old; that extraterrestrial life forms live among us; that Trump is the smartest man on the planet.
why should i do it ? i have never made the statement:
so let's see you prove that Leprechauns, Unicorns, Medusa and BigFoot don't exist - it would be the same as proving God does or doesn't exist... and since you are under the belief that God exists - you must have done some research already and are willing to share.
that would be due to lack of evidence - i'm not convinced God exists... but i could easily be wrong. Putting God into the "mythological category" is only as permanent as permitted by evidence - if evidence points to the contrary, then i will not classify it as a mythological creature anymore. so back to the question:
maybe this time you'll answer it... or you'll probably just dodge, deflect and make more snide comments about non-believers supposedly being unhappy etc as expected...
not at all.
No, it's an assessment.
Belief does not equal fact. And something cannot logically be deemed true without evidence to back it up.
Once again: objective, empirical, verifiable, falsifiable. I've been over that already. But you seem to refuse to accept that.
The scientific community uses it. The standards do not get higher than that when it comes to establishing validity.
Maybe you could not deflect.
Now you're getting personal.
I have repeatedly said I'm open to evidence or alternatives. You have yet to offer anything logical. And considering how TiG called you out on your inability to understand the burden of proof and debate principles, as well as your low-bar standard for acceptable evidence, my statement stands!
I dismiss anything that lacks anything of substance to support it.
Maybe you need to work on your sarcasm! Especially since you seem to think subjective and anecdotal evidence is acceptable evidence to support otherwise outrageous claims.
His statement is fine as it is. God is just one deity in a long line of deities throughout history and is just as mythical as the others. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
maybe you should learn English better - as i stated:
which means - currently i do put God in the "mythological category" due to lack of evidence for otherwise. Of course many who understand English already knew this, i'm surprised you didn't understand it. so now, back to the question:
maybe this time you'll answer it... or you'll probably just dodge, deflect and make more snide comments about non-believers supposedly being unhappy etc as expected... (you can keep dodging and deflecting such a simple question, it speaks volumes)
gee.. sounds like a snide comment about unbelievers being happy.. doesn't it ? so now that's settled...
maybe this time you'll answer it... or you'll probably just dodge, deflect and make more snide comments about non-believers supposedly being unhappy etc as expected... (you can keep dodging and deflecting such a simple question, it speaks volumes)
you seem to be having problems with English and answering simple questions... wonder why ? .....
Nope, just fact!
Some people seem to think that their beliefs means the object of said belief is real or true.
Not my problem if you don't like my answers.
Nope. Still fact.
Right back at you.
nope.. just proving the claim that i made.. unlike what you have been doing...
again... (since you didn't answer the question that was asked.. i didn't ask why you personally only believed in God... anyone who understands English figured out what i was asking..)
as you can see - i'm asking why you wouldn't put your belief in other mythological creatures like Leprechauns, Unicorns, Medusa and BigFoot... you "feel" that God has worked things in your life, but it could easily have been good luck brought to you by Leprechauns and you don't know for sure do you ? So why haven't you put any belief in Leprechauns or Unicorns or Medusa or BigFoot ? it makes no sense and is very inconsistent....
Those are lovely adjectives. But they're empty, useless words unless they describe a specific thing. Give us some examples of specific things that would qualify for you.
This is what you would normally dismiss as an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Yet you are happy to use it yourself.
So . . . you can't prove it.
But you can't define substance.
It certainly can be.
In your opinion. I consider your opinion subjective and emotional, lacking substance.
No it is not. Gordy is giving an example of a well-conceived, well-defined standard of evidence that has been demonstrated to be highly effective by a worldwide community — the scientific community. It is almost undeniable (but I suspect you are going to try to deny it) that science does indeed work. In spite of the fact that it is a process operated by flawed human beings, the discipline, standards and methods of science demonstrably produce impressive results and continue to do so.
He was not arguing that scientific evidence is good because a poll of scientists said so; that would be argumentum ad populum. In other words, it does not matter what a body of human beings believe, it is what can be demonstrated to work (or be mostly true).
Yes it is. In American criminal courts, for example, an accused defendant is considered innocent until evidence is presented that tends to prove his guilt. In other countries (i.e. other fora), it is up to the defendant to prove his innocence.
Furthermore - again in America - the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Interestingly, we refuse to put a number on that standard. We don't say the fact finder should be 100% sure or 95%. We say merely that the finder of fact has an "abiding conviction" (i.e. it's a subjective, emotional standard) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (not just any imaginable doubt).
But in contrast to that, when we are deciding most matters in a civil trial, the winner is the party who proves his case based on a "preponderance of the evidence." Think of that as 50% plus some non-specific amount. In other situations, the conclusion is reached based on "clear and convincing evidence." I can't give you a number for that one either, but most people think it lives somewhere between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt. The precise level of certainty is purely subjective.
Sometimes, specific elements are defined and all must be satisfied before a conclusion can be reached. Other times, the finder of fact reaches a conclusion based on their assessment of the "totality of the circumstances."
In criminal cases, certain kinds of evidence are considered because it is considered fair and reasonable to do so. Some kinds of evidence are excluded even though they may be relevant. In civil cases, there are different rules for evidence. And all of these rules vary from state to state and in federal court the rules are different still.
You might think clarity would be found at the appellate level, but not so. There is even more variety in how appellate courts review cases and if they decide to review based on an inquiry into abuse of discretion, you might as well just roll dice.
So yes, concepts of burdens and standards of proof are very much forum dependent.
Lots of people agreeing on something is not science. Sorry, it's just not.
Except for the reference to a poll, that is literally what he said. I asked him to prove his claim that the scientific method was the best method for finding truth and the proof he offered was that the scientific community uses it. That's it! That was the argument.
Innocent until proven guilty is not a logical idea but instead it's a legal protection to put the burden of proof on the state instead of the defendant.
God doesn't exist because you believe that he does. I do not have to prove that your God doesn't exist because doing so is a logical impossibility. I cannot prove that many things do not exist but that doesn't mean that they do by default. Didn't you learn that you logically cannot prove a negative? Believers are making a positive claim that something (God) exists, so the burden of proof is on them to prove their claim to be true.
How many times do I have to post Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot analogy before you understand this concept?
I clearly wrote philosophical burden of proof (repeatedly) because I am not and never was speaking of the legal burden of proof. To be precise, even on the legal angle you took, your argument deals with the standard of proof rather than the burden of proof . The two seem similar but are quite different.
Wrong on this too.
The philosophical burden of proof is that which applies when in debate. And the forum does not matter. That is, this concept does not change when one moves from NT to another debate forum. The concept remains consistent. Further, it is well known and rather easy to understand. Even a dictionary can make this clear (the dictionary definition does not vary per forum):
Burden of proof (in general) = " The obligation to prove one's assertion. " or " the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge "
So, as noted, if you make an assertion (regardless of forum) you bear the burden of proof (obligation to prove the assertion). If your assertion or charge (i.e. claim) is challenged, you have the duty to prove your claim.
And this does not simply apply here on NT. Nobody has crafted specific rules on NT for when the burden of proof applies. It always applies when someone makes a claim.
That established, in my referenced article I was more descriptive than the dictionary so as to make the concept more actionable. That was, after all, the purpose of the article. To that end, I noted that in the burden of proof, the standard is not literally ' proof ' since ' proof ' in reality is next to impossible ( proof is typically something that arises within a formal system with precise rules ). Rather, the standard of proof is better stated as proof/evidence. That is, one must back up one's claims with persuasive evidence.
In addition, I also clarified the notion of a claim. People often write language that can be taken as a claim when in reality they were expressing an opinion or personal conclusion. Offering an opinion without claiming (or implying) truth does not bear the burden of proof/evidence. The burden comes when someone makes a claim of certainty - when someone claims (or implies) that something is true.
So, for example:
Similarly:
Finally:
Very revealing. You just demonstrated that you did not even read my post. You are rebutting without even bothering to comprehend what the other person wrote.
Yes, Tacos!, as I noted:
So a bunch of scientists agreeing on something is indeed NOT science. Science (or in this case, findings of science) is based on demonstration. That demonstration is based on solid evidence and logic.
And my post explained that. The point is that science works. The credibility of the scientific method is what Gordy was (obviously) referencing.
Then you clearly do not understand them
[deleted] Scientific methods of gathering evidence is an established and effective standard utilized by the scientific community. It's not based on some popularity contest.
I did. You simply refuse to either understand or accept it. or both.
Actual objective, empirical evidence. i thought that was obvious.
No, it can't. it's the least reliable and weakest form of "evidence."
Nope, still fact.
Sorry, but your opinion means very little to me.
I should hope not. Neither does lots of people agreeing on something automatically make something real or true. Actual evidence is needed. And science goes where the evidence leads.
Because the method the scientific community uses establishes validity and credibility based on evidence. You seem to think something is "truth" because a bunch of people say so or because, reasons. Science doesn't do that. Science used actual evidence to establish a valid or credible "truth," and not with hearsay or just because people say so. TiG clearly understood (and correctly elaborated in a very articlate way) what I said. A shame you did not.
We have (for a while now) been at the predictable stage where the opposing view ceases even the pretense of debate ... just petty disagreement.
wow.. a deleted comment skirting the CoC .... is that an example of a "happy" believer ?
i think that would be sufficient proof - i'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.. you seem a bit angry and not very "happy" ... yet accuse the non-believers of being "unhappy" ? interesting....
yes, that is the goal of many of the religious - thus the reasons for their constant recruiting (knocking on your door to get you to be apart of their favorite house of worship and believe exactly as they do) or constant condemning to "Hell" or standing on street corners and letting everyone know they are doomed if they don't believe exactly like the religious do... yes, seems like the goal of many of the religious - i'm glad you pointed it out
oh i accept it, you can believe what you want - but it doesn't excuse you from being questioned about it by others, does it ? i have quite a few religious friends, many of who are Christians - yet when i have these debates with them none of them get quite as upset nor make snide comments about non-believers being unhappy or anything of that nature.... i guess they are a better example of "happy" believers who are secure in their beliefs, huh ?
very interesting... you don't want to provide proof for religious beliefs... but i'm sure you want proof for accusations against you, right ? (you certainly did earlier).. and i'm sure you'd want proof for a myriad of other things.... yet asking for proof of religious beliefs is somehow wrong in your mind ? .. very interesting...
ah yes.. another "happy" believer
oh sure... because we all know that since i keep my comments within the CoC (if you need "proof" - i lack tickets.. and i'm sure you could ask Perrie.. i give her permission to let you know how many tickets i do or don't have.. it's all good) and your comment was skirting the CoC that it must be some giant conspiracy theory that they are out to get you and anyone else who thinks like you, right ? (do you have faith or belief in that conspiracy theory ?)
that could be true, you never know. Of course this would depend on this God character actually appearing.. .it's been literally hundreds of years... i guess God isn't good at keeping appointments, huh ?
not shocking at all... and most non-believers who question believers about their beliefs aren't "unhappy" .. i realize that probably comes as a shock to you.
wait.. who's asking about faith ? i'm asking about beliefs... there's a difference between faith and belief... i realize that probably comes as a shock to you but it's quite true..
what did i make up ? i know you wanted proof for the earlier accusation i made against you and thusly i provided it - i guess i could have told you that i have my own personal belief and faith in that belief in the accusation i made against you and you would have accepted that completely instead of asking for proof, right ??
no need to confuse curiosity with overall state of happiness either, but i'm sure that won't stop the comments
thanks, my evening is going swell ! i hope you enjoy yours as well ! and thanks for the last word, it's quite an honor considering the comment history
If it's so obvious, give us some examples.
Here is a way to do this Tacos!
For Example
1: Definition - We could define God as creator of the known universe.
2: Standard - The standard of evidence might be measurable proof of a power that could shape the cosmos and create life. This, by the way, could be satisfied by a powerful alien entity that is not eternal, omniscient, etc. Thus this standard of evidence would not prove the grandest possible entity but would be deemed as bona fide evidence nonetheless. Assume agreement on this standard.
3: Experiment - One of many enumerated experiments might be something like creating a second sun so that our solar system has a mutually orbiting twin sun at its core and all planets continue without disruption.
Now, for me, this would not prove we are in the presence of God but I would sure as hell consider this to be evidence of an entity that could indeed be God. I suspect I would instantly become an agnostic theist.
However, if we instead chose the Christian God - the god defined by the Bible - rather than ('creator of the known universe'), we would first have to do some redefinition to eliminate the contradictions before even starting a search for empirical evidence.
Very logical and well said, as usual TiG.
What do you think I've been trying to do? I've lost count of the number of times I have asked you guys to define what you're talking about. You won't do it.
How about hearing from you? I asked you the question. It's your seed. Are you incapable of responding to a direct question posed in @9.2.107?
I do not recall you asking me to do this, but I am willing to do so. Indeed I sort of did it by example. But forget that.
Step 1 is to define what we mean by God. I suspect by 'God' you mean the god of the Bible. So what are the characteristics of God? I can offer a starter set. The biblical God is defined to be eternal, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, loving and emotional who created everything (in particular human beings in His own image) and has an eternal plan for all human beings with whom he granted free will to make whatever choices they wish. (I could go on but this should start things.) What are the characteristics of God as you define God?
Steps 2 and 3 depend on Step 1.
We aren't trying to convince me, so my definition doesn't matter. You and Gordy are the ones saying he doesn't (or in some posts probably doesn't) exist. But no one knows what would change your mind. I have asked Gordy a few times what would convince him. Simply saying "empirical" or something is useless. We can do labs and proofs til the cows come home but that doesn't tell anyone what specific evidence you are waiting on.
According to scripture, Jesus performed numerous miracles - including coming back from the dead - right in front of people and they still didn't want to believe it. So insisting on something you can observe isn't very useful if you're not inclined to believe what you see.
You ask a question yet refuse to get specific to enable the question to be answered. What is anyone supposed to do with that?
How is the 'god' referenced by 'he' defined? Unless we can agree on a definition I cannot respond to your allegation.
Again, I offered a method for getting past this.
Here is another example of evidence. Let's focus on the attribute of omniscience.
Evidence for omniscience seems easy to come by. For example, an omniscient entity would be able to tell us the stock prices of the stocks comprising the DJIA at the close of business next Monday. That would be evidence of omniscience. Far from proof but certainly we can accept that as evidence to be used in an argument.
What I think would be cool is to use this to illustrate to people that if an entity is omniscient then free will cannot possibly exist. For example, the entity could precisely tell us what a particular individual will do over the next 24 hours. That is high quality evidence that can be measured, cataloged and verified.
That should give an idea of where this might lead.
No need. TiG already explained it far better than I could.
... that cannot be shown to be anything more than the writing of ancient men with pens and agendas.
If someone literally raised someone from the dead (after we verified the person is truly dead) I would find that to be evidence of a superior entity. I suspect most people would. But unless we agreed that the defining characteristic for God is raising people from the dead, we would not be able to deem this evidence of God.
Skepticism coupled with solid evidence and logic is a good thing. They are core to the human pursuit of truth. Accepting something as true –merely because others claim it is so– without clear corroboration, is a bad thing. It enables the accepter to be manipulated by the promoter.
It also means one is gullible and will believe anything anyone tells them, especially if it's something that one wants or likes to hear.
... at least on matters of God.
Exactly. It's funny to note that some people might believe or accept anything pertaining to god, but not for anything else, especially without evidence.
in fact.. i have seen many people on this very seed constantly demand proof from others when others make accusations of a political nature or make statements about the President... they absolutely want tangible, verifiable proof and evidence !!! ... well.. unless we are talking about God.. then they are mysteriously silent about wanting proof and in fact chide everyone else for wanting proof... i wish they would at least be consistent with their demands for proof
Is that supposed to be funny?
That would be useless. I am not the one who needs convincing so my standard of proof is irrelevant.
Remember how this started:
I outlined a way for us to provide examples @9.2.108 but, given your excuses, clearly you do not want to get specific so as to get real answers.
And that is fine, but it is intellectually dishonest to now complain that you cannot get examples of what might constitute objective, empirical evidence for God.
Not at all.
Indeed. Basically, they believe and/or accept whatever they want to believe, and screw any proof. It's intellectual dishonesty/laziness at its best.