A Terrifying Number Of Trump Supporters Believe God Made Him President
It’s bad enough that the human embodiment of a YouTube comment section – Donald Trump – is president of the United States. More frightening, however, is that many of his supporters believe his presence in the Oval Office was an act of God.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
According to a brand new Fox News poll , 55 percent of white Evangelical Christians – one of Trump’s strongest voting blocs – believe God wanted this president to beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Overall, 25 percent – still a scary number – believe a higher being favored a Trump presidency. A combined 76 percent say they either don’t believe or are unsure of whether God made Trump commander-in-chief.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
80 visitors
It's no wonder that the founding fathers split religion and government.
There are NT members who believe Trump is God's appointed agent.
Delusional "thinking" just doesn't seem to end. Does it?
Is it the "Trump" part....or the "God" part that has you "Thinking?" again ?
The part where you pair them.
You …. must have missed the word "OR" ..... "I" used.. ... huh !
No, I didn't miss anything. Your sentence contains both. What is it with this constant word parsing? From the crowd who has no problem with the Pricktator farting out random thoughts.
You're expecting coherence, maybe?
OR
WORD ORIGIN
conjunction
1. used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives :
"We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. "
Frank A. Clark
Yup !
Was my statement not clear enough for you? Let's see if I can make it clearer: Thinking some deity chooses a leader is delusional thinking. Hope that clarifies things for you.
Really now !
It's like you know …………. ALL about what deities do !
Are you a Demi-God ?
But they probably won't claim God chose Hitler, or Kim Yong-un.
The idea of any deity choosing our leader is absolutely delusional ... and these same people also claim we have free will. And why would God, if it really expects people to obey the 10 Commandments, choose a leader who spits on pretty much all of its commandments? It sounds as if they think their bible is BS.
Here's an example of how it works:
Question - "Is the Trump sycophant intentionally obtuse OR just an idiot?"
Answer: "Probably both".
You don't know ?
"Here's an example of how it works:"
That's an example how you want it to work !
You asked a question, he answered. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you get to corner him into an "a" or "b" choice answer.
Is Trump the worst President in the last decade OR the last century?
He "Combined" as the Same !
"OR" doesn't mean "AND"....as you so clumsily try with your meaningless "Questions" !
I'm not sure Clark is someone I would reference :
The quote says much to the subject it was responding to....not the subject YOU want put forth !
"A man's conscience, like a warning line on the highway, tells him what he shouldn't do - but it does not keep him from doing it."
Frank A. Clark
Our founding fathers had slaves .....but they got this country going besides that ....didn't they !
What is this word??
What part of "in 1911, Clark proposed" do you not understand? This was not Revolutionary times.
( actually some do indeed make that claim )
No, you asked if it were the Trump part or the God part that has him "thinking".
He answered it was the intersection where they meet that is the issue. He's stating, quite logically, that it's the idea of this feckless moron in the oval office being "chosen" by any omniscient deity that is laughable (unless Trump is merely the newest meteor this supposed all powerful God uses to destroy the planet).
I suppose if there is a God and it saw the number of deplorable's on the planet he might be regretting, once again, that it made man or let any of them survive its last genocide and might, just might, inflict the world with the political equivalent of a fatal ass boil.
And what did it "Change"....using your understanding !
Wow. I wonder how anyone could worship a god they thought would murder so many people ... but then, they excuse all God's atrocities in the bible, so I guess they just don't care
Ummmm...
- the Civil War?
- the end of slavery?
It is all rationalized katrix. I am not sure how one does this, but plenty do. No matter what God does the act is deemed to be perfect and good. The major rationalization is that we are too stupid to understand divine wisdom — what looks cruel and petty to us is actually divine perfection.
So Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et. al. are all part of God's divine plan.
Thinking some deity chooses a leader is delusional thinking.
Thinking some deity does anything is delusional thinking, IMO.
Quite true. Indeed you will also find here on NT the belief that God appoints all the world's leaders (this is based on the Bible of course).
Do you find it as "terrifying" as the author?
Not ALL .... just some !
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
John F. Kennedy
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."
Winston Churchill
"The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things."
Ronald Reagan
"No dream is too big. No challenge is too great. Nothing we want for our future is beyond our reach."
Donald Trump
I find it as terrifying as the knowledge that some people believe their God is active in global decisions and believe their God has chosen them to enact their Gods will. That's exactly the kind of blind devotion that leads religious conservatives to strap suicide vests on or buy an arsenal and start murdering innocent people in markets, Mosques, Temples, Churches or abortion clinics. Religious extremist beliefs are terrifying no matter what faith they come from, and the fact that we possibly have millions of Americans who believe their God hand picked this corrupt President and thus make them more likely to do whatever he tells them to because they consider them directives from their God, well I frankly can't think of anything more terrifying.
'Terrifying' is not the appropriate word for me. I find Trump to be an embarrassment.
Here is the deal, Tex. The PotUS is limited by the checks & balances (as well as by partisan politics). And, in reality, most of the job is routine. There are occasions - especially in times of war / national security where the PotUS as CiC wields substantial power and can make a major difference (good or bad) in the nation/world. On another note, in the area of appointments, the PotUS will usually pick people who align with his political views so it almost does not matter who is the PotUS in this regard, but rather what party the PotUS represents.
So for the most part, the PotUS' main gig is to be the face for the USA - the number one representative of the people of this nation.
We are, worldwide, viewed as the people who put Donald Trump in office as our President. I find that to be embarrassing.
No, some members of NT believe that God puts ALL the world leaders in power.
Whom ?
That just shows god has set the bar pretty low.
Fortunately for us, His bar isn't so low that Trumps closest opponent did get His OK.
2016 presented the worst PotUS choice I have seen in my life. It was a lose-lose proposition.
Agreed!
Whom ?
Probably some far right wing religious extremist who lives to hate the other and science.
No, his bar is pretty much in the dirt.
And even that low Hillary was in able to get over the bar and Trump was.
Some find it embarrassing, others don't.
Brilliant deduction.
Which makes it more surprising you didn't acknowledge that fact earlier.
You need someone to acknowledge that not everyone considers Trump an embarrassment?
I gave you my opinion and you need me to also stipulate that others would not share my opinion??
[Deleted]
I do. I believe God appoints all world leaders.
Like the "Divine right of Kings" nonsense. That does away with the free will thing. What's the point of elections then?
In what way? Were you prevented from voting?
If God makes your vote an act of futility, is that really the spirit of free will?
Did you bother to really read what Gordy said? Or didn't comprehend the comment?
No. Free will is the ability to choose between options and act on it. It is not the realization of one's will.
Yes to both questions. Why?
Note how I (carefully) phrased my question (since I knew what your answer would be):
Gordy is not stating that people are unable to decide on a candidate and then cast a (totally futile) vote. He is talking about the effect - the spirit of free will.
( By the way ... o b v i o u s l y ! )
To better appreciate this concept: if God were to claim 'you all have free will' and then undermine everything we did, you would insist that we have free will while I would observe that, in effect (in the honest spirit of free will), we do not.
I understand the concept. I understand what you are saying. You're free to look at it as you will. You have free will in that. However, what I said remains. Free will is the ability to choose between options and act on it. It is not the realization of one's will. It's really that simple.
You understand the notion of spirit of free will yet you are still going to totally ignore Gordy's point by sticking to a mechanical definition of free will?
How about this paraphrase?:
That violates the spirit of free will. What's the point of elections then?
Yes. This is because that I understand how you guys look at the 'spirit of free will' doesn't mean I agree with it. Since I assume nothing interferes with Gordy's electoral choices and was able to vote, I disregarded his complaint as irrelevant.
Really? How would you define free will?
How is this relevant to free will as I defined it?
Does a population not have free will? Or does God always agree with election results. If God swings the vote, that negates the free will of many within a population.
What do you think free will is? Whatever answer I come up with will have little meaning if we aren't talking about the same thing.
I wouldn't know.
Why? Were they unable to choose their candidate or issue or were prevented from voting on it? Unless they were, they exercised free will.
You claim to know whether God agrees with election results. If he appoints all world leaders, including elected ones, then elections go according to God's plan. Or does he disagree with himself?
If God appoints a leader the people don't choose, he has usurped their free will.
Of course, the most likely explanation is that elections go as they go, and those who believe that God decides the results will believe so regardless of the results or the reality.
No, I don't. I can't say how God does it. He doesn't tell me. He just says it is He who appoints authority.
Again, I don't know how God does it. Presumably, He moves in ways that gets the results He wants.
I disagree. As I said, free will is the ability to choose between options and act on it, nothing more. Free will is not defined as the ability to make one's will manifest. I asked you to define free will but you didn't. Since all I have to go by are the things you say, it seems apparent that you feel free will is the ability to manifest one's will. If so, I disagree. That is not free will.
why do you think that is the most likely? Upon what do you base this?
If God exerts himself in any way to appoint leaders, those being led have no free will in choosing their leaders.
I think my explanation most likely for several reasons. First, the likely nonexistence of God. Second, it suits human nature for those in power to claim divine authority put them there. Third, it's an easy explanation for those who can't see that if our choices are made for us, either as individuals or groups, we have no free will.
From my way of thinking, for this to be true the chooser would not have an option other than to vote for whomever God demanded they vote for.
Why do you think it unlikely?
We agree on this much. While I believe they are right, where they go wrong is that in thinking so, God approves of what they do while they are in power.
This is a bit too vague to respond to.
I find it embarrassing that far right wing high school dropouts think that they can make the rules.
It's entirely possible that some were thinking of you.
If God chooses a nation's leader then voting for a leader is an act of futility.
You agree with that language, right?
No, I do not. It seems God works through people as much or more than He acts unilaterally.
What does it mean for God to work through people? Are you suggesting that God influences people to vote so that His choice for leader wins the election?
If god wants someone to be a leader, then that means god must cause voters to vote for whom god wants. There is no chance to it. Therefore, a voter only thinks they have a choice, but that is not the case, as God wants them to vote his way.
Free will is an illusion. If god wants a specific individual to be a leader, then he has to make sure enough people vote for said leader. To guarantee a victory, god would have to manipulate enough people to ensure a majority vote. That is the opposite of free will.
You are free to be wrong then.
What you don't seem to understand is that such a "choice" is an illusion and irrelevant. If God already chose who he wants, then any "choice" we make is pointless and will have no effect. The outcome is already determined.
Which means we mere mortals have no real say (or choice) in such things.
The only way that is possible in an election system is to manipulate voters to vote his way. Ergo, they lose free will.
If the outcome is already predetermined, there is no option which can change it in the slightest.
God does it. That comes at the expense of others free will, especially those whom might act contrary to god's wish.
That statement argues against the possibility of free will.
And yet, you really think god bothers with election results? Interesting.
The total lack of evidence for starters.
It's quite clear to me.
If god "works through people" to get what he wants, then that effectively eliminates the "worked through" person their free will. God essentially uses them as a tool.
Why would you continue to frequent places where that could even happen?
Or is that just some fantasy of yours?
As I told Sandy, I don't know how God does it, but, as for God working through people, you only need to read the Bible to find that God works through people.
Again, I don't know how God does it. My guess is that God motivates those who would cause an election to turn out the way it does, but that is only a guess.
Her, lets just cut to the chase, as all of these arguments always end up here anyways:
PROVE IT.
That is the whole crux of their argument.
You are simply wasting your time responding to them about God.
That's one possibility. Another is that those who are predisposed to vote for a particular candidate are prompted by God do actually vote. I don't know. As I have repeatedly stated, I don't know how God goes about it. I just believe that God appoints.
True, but the question is, did God force their decision as to who to vote for? It seems to me that, for you, free will equates to imposition of your will rather than the ability to make a choice between options.
I disagree. As I have repeatedly stated, free will is the ability to choose an option among several. If God moved those who, of their own free will chose one candidate over another to vote, that isn't rigging the election.
I can't tell you what it means to me to have your permission.
What you don't seem to understand is, regardless of what God wants, you are free to choose whom you wish. If it were otherwise, all elected officials would be elected with 100% of the vote. Since that is obviously not the case...
Correct. You are either for God or against. That's it.
If that were true, no one would have been able to vote for Clinton.
And? How does that relate to fee will?
(sigh) Are you suggesting that, should God exist, He has no free will of His own? A bank robber may have the free will to decide to rob a bank. That society refutes that notion doesn't remove the free will of the robber, as history will attest. God has declared, 'I am God' and you can either believe it or not. That's free will.
Uh, yeah?!
Not really. I don't think God bothers with election results in the manner we do. God is only interested in how it serves His plan. He could care less about the politics of elections beyond whether it serves His purpose or not.
Incorrect. Take Moses and Pharaoh for instance. Both served God's will.
You may be correct. I often feel the same way. There are several reasons why I keep trying.
One is that their challenges makes me question what I believe. That is, what do I believe and why? There should be no fear in doing so. If God is real, there is no danger of falling away. He would not allow it.
The other is, I seem to have a passion for this. Why? I don't know. I'm afraid it is pride on my part, but maybe it's what God leads me to do. I don't really know. If it is God, then who can say what may result, other than God?
Understood; and I fully accept that you would not know how God does it. Do you at least assert that God does something to put a nation's leader in power?
Assuming you agree, then if the nation elects its leaders, then the election is in some way controlled by God. Whether God magically changes the votes, influences voters to vote His way or some other method ... ultimately God has taken action to ensure His choice becomes the leader.
Do you agree?
That is a good point.
Both sides in a debate can justifiably claim they are wasting their time. It is easy to find justification for such a claim: if one is debating to change the mind of the other side then they are almost certainly wasting their time because that is not likely to happen.
If, however, the debate exists to tease out a better approximation to truth — to put forth challenges to an argument and to respond to same. Then it is quite valuable; it is the classical dialectic. Especially if the debate can be observed by others. This is one of the most worthwhile endeavors to explore complex areas.
Of course it is pointless to engage in debate with someone who is not serious; whose contribution is nothing more than platitudes which over-simplify that which is under discussion. Those individuals will likely never understand the value in thoughtful debate — the value in legitimate challenges to a well articulated position.
it still boils down, every time, to "Prove it" from one side.
Ultimately, yes.
[deleted]
For them, yes, it does. For them, they try to make it about the burden of proof, even though that, on some level, they know it doesn't apply. That is, not in the manner in which they insist.
Note that we are talking about free will as that which is granted by God. The premise is that God purposely grants free will so that human beings are free to learn from their mistakes.
Free will is the ability to choose and then to act on one's choices. An individual of free mind (not controlled by God) who goes to the election booth to vote has acted of free will. And, of course, there is no guarantee that they will get their intended results. Mechanically, we all probably agree on individual free will: freedom to choose, to act but no promise of desired results.
Where we disagree is at the collective level (nations, societies, etc.). This is where the notion of 'spirit of free will' applies.
Free will refers to human beings having the means to act without God interceding. In the past we talked about free will regarding pedophile murderers. God, it was claimed, allows men to rape and murder little girls because His intercession would violate individual free will. Individual free will is required to explain (albeit in part) why God allows bad things to happen to innocent people.
God did not (and does not) intercede for untold billions of human beings who have been brutalized. He will not stop them individually in the act, and He does not effect collective measures to prevent the brutality. In short, God allowing horrible things to occur at the individual level AND at the collective level upholds the spirit of free will.
That established ...
Taking action to ensure His choice for leader is 'elected'' (regardless of how this is done) violates the spirit of free will. People can decide on a candidate and vote (individual free will) but ultimately their collective will is usurped by God.
The principle of human beings learning from their collective mistakes is, in this case, mitigated by God.
(Further, if God allows collective free will in some circumstances but not others that will produce false positive and false negatives yielding an unreliable feedback mechanism for learning.)
This is some rather vague commentary Drakk. What do you mean by: 'on some level, they know it doesn't apply'.
As an aside, the USA electorate choosing Clinton and Trump as our candidates for PotUS might be seen as evidence that God is clearly NOT picking our leaders.
No, it is not. It is either we acknowledge God as God, meaning that He has the right to rule us, or we oppose Him. That's it.
Okay, as far as this goes.
Not to me, it doesn't. Your view seems to be some sort of ad populum argument.
Not the way I understand free will. Ultimately, free will is only whether one will choose to obey God or not.
What is the basis for you defining it thus? Until you answer, there's not much point in responding to your posts.
Free will is not intended to allow us to make mistakes and learn from same? What now is the purpose for free will? And, accordingly, what is the explanation for why God allows bad things to happen to innocent people?
Not even close. The mere fact that the collective is my subject does not make my argument ad populum. Ad populum is (generally) when someone claims they are right because their opinion is shared by the majority. You should re-read what I wrote because clearly you misunderstood it.
So really 'free will' is a horrible label for your concept. It is not free will, but simply the freedom to not obey God. That is a very specific, very limited form of freedom. No wonder we do not see eye-to-eye in this discussion.
I stated this upfront - my opening paragraph:
Can you empirically prove that pedophilia is wrong? Can you empirically prove that love is a real thing in and of itself as opposed to merely chemical reaction? Can you prove all men are created equal, empirically? Can you empirically prove there is a right and wrong?
Point being, burden of proof doesn't apply to everything. Not in the sense that one claims that mass x, dropped from height y, will accelerate in gravity well z at c velocity. When it comes to God, we are talking about a person, not a merely natural, physical object.
That said, it is not my intent that proof concerning God isn't necessary. My point is that proof concerning proof will not be the same concerning God as it would be for mass x.
A horrible concept? I'm not surprised, considering the difference in our worldviews.
Well, at least you understand the difference in our views.
Apparently you do not see the problem with what you've said here. For the sake of argument, can you not see that if all that exists, exists for some purpose of God, free will would be the ability to choose other than what that God would dictate?
It is clear that you do not. It is clear that free will is not the ability to choose, but rather, that your will be done. Apparently you cannot see the difference.
Where do you get this? Where did you come up with the idea that the purpose of free will is for the purpose of learning from our mistakes?
I would advise you to not question whether murderous pedophilia is wrong to try to shore up your argument.
True. But it does apply when someone makes a claim. If you claim X is true then you have the burden of proof / evidence.
Why not? If you claim that God exists then your bear the burden of proof / evidence simply because you made the claim of truth.
Yes. The concept of free will would be severely limited if it only meant the ability to disobey God. It is a redefinition of a common term.
Oxford on 'free will': " The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. "
Redefining a phrase is always a bad form of argument; worse if the phrase is well-established.
Free will, per you, logically means to choose. The choice may be in alignment with what God dictates, in opposition or a choice in an area where God has no rules. Where do you get the notion that it is ONLY in opposition? Again, you are redefining the phrase itself.
That is not what I have argued:
It is not a choice if the choice is undone by the supreme entity.
From you. Apparently you see things differently now. So, back to the original question that lead to that, why does God allow people to do horrible things to innocent people? Why does God NOT stop the pedophile from raping and murdering a little girl? If free will is simply a choice that can be undone, then why does God not prevent acting upon the choice to rape and kill a little girl? Why does God allow such brutality on innocent lives?
That is not an answer.
I claim that pedophilia is wrong. Are you going to demand burden of proof? If not, why?
Okay, that's reasonable. What isn't is the manner in which you, and your side, demand proof. What you want is proof similar to Einstein's equation. Something you can put into a test tube and examine under an electron microscope so that you can determine it's properties.
Problem is, God isn't a part of the natural world. If God exists, you have to consider that He isn't subject to your criteria. Let me repeat that. If God exists, then He probably isn't subject to your criteria. If He were, wouldn't that make you God?
I believe not only that God exists but that He has a plan. I believe that He desires that each of us comes to Him. I have no more burden of proof in declaring that than in declaring that pedophilia is wrong. The reason I don't have that burden is the same for not having the burden of proving that pedophilia is wrong.
But, if Yahweh has already chosen Trump as the leader of our country what difference does it make to go to the polls and, vote? No matter what happens or, how many people go to the polls to vote Trump will win so, according to Christian Rightwinger logic, they could all stay home and, not vote and, Trump would still win. Right?
oh !
Like this Extremist zealot ?
"there's no way I could ever separate my Christian belief from my obligations as a naval officer, as a governor or as President , or from my work now."
Nope.
As I have repeatedly said, I don't know how God goes about it.
Let's change that to something I would challenge. If you claim that pedophilia is right (i.e. moral) then you have the burden of proof.
Show me where I have ever demanded proof for a claim. Evidence, Drakk, not proof. Proof, strictly speaking, is next to impossible. Also, Gordy's 'that's nice, prove it' is his pithy trademark response. Ask Gordy if he demands literal proof or if he is challenging the claimer to back up the claim with solid evidence.
Equations in theoretical physics are not evidence. However, observing the bending of light by a mass (i.e. our sun) is evidence that the theory of Relativity is correct. That, by the way, is not proof that Relativity is correct, it is evidence.
Something that can be formally observed and measured by objective third parties. 'I had this experience ...' for example, is not evidence.
That, Drakk, is a dodge. You claim to know God exists and that He interacts with the natural world - 100% certainty. If God interacts with the natural world (as claimed) then there should be evidence of the interaction. Something that can only be explained as divine.
Agreed. That too, however, does not excuse the burden of proof / evidence. Because clearly you have something underlying your claim that God exists - 100% certainty (in spite of how your current conditional phrasing). If someone claims that God exists then the question is: 'on what grounds do you make this claim of certainty?'. If, on the other hand, someone claims belief in God, there is no burden of proof. One may still ask why the belief is held, but logically a claim of belief is not a claim of truth and thus bears no burden of proof / evidence.
Frankly, it doesn't matter how God supposedly goes about it. That's minutiae. If he imposes his will in appointing leaders, he is not allowing free will.
Then why does God allow people to do horrible things to innocent people? Why does God NOT stop the pedophile from raping and murdering a little girl? Why does God allow such brutality on innocent lives?
God allows a pedophile to rape and murder a little girl so that He can observe disobedience?? Why? God is omniscient. God knows who will obey and who will not obey. What is the point, in your opinion, of God allowing such brutal, pointless acts on innocent children?
Then on what grounds do you hold the belief that God appoints the leaders of all nations (throughout history) and including, notably, Trump?
Just out of curiosity, why does someone who doesn't believe in God believe that God allows anything, or would have the power to do anything?
One who does not belief in God necessarily does not believe that God allows anything. I could discuss the evil deeds of Darth Vader - do you think that means I believe he actually exists?
Do you really want people reading your nonsense to believe that you cannot figure out that I am using 'God' when speaking with Drakk to refer to his belief rather than repeatedly use awkward phrases such as: 'God, per your beliefs'?
This oft-repeated ploy of yours is not clever and is not even creative. I am confident everyone here is smart enough to see through your silly game of words.
That's a grand total of (1) one....anyway !
if you can't answer, a simple no would have sufficed.
You did not ask a yes | no question. Buy a vowel.
You asked:
"Just out of curiosity, why does someone who doesn't believe in God believe that God allows anything, or would have the power to do anything?"
How would a simple "no" answer that?
He explained in perfectly proper English why your question is flawed. He simply answered that he doesn't believe your God has the power to do anything, but was asking why you believe your God allows bad things to happen to good people. If I claimed that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real and you didn't believe me, but I claimed that the FSM cared about all hungry people and magically sends them noodles when in need so you ask "Well then why are so many people still starving? You claim the FSM is real and cares about starving people, yet starving people still exist? How do you explain this?". Are you admitting you believe in the FSM by asking that question? Of course not. And neither is Tig by asking "why does God (per your beliefs) allow people to do horrible things to the innocent?".
You could have simply said you couldn't answer.
He did answer.
Do you understand hypotheticals?
I would never ask such an asinine question. If I didn't believe in your FSM, it would be asinine to ask a question regarding something I consider fictional. Why the hell would I care what you believe regarding something I consider fictional? If you want to believe it, more power to you!
Ah, there's the answer to my question.
yes.
If so, this conversation would not be going in the direction in which you're derailing it.
No, that was an answer to another poster.
2.2.84 is the answer to what you asked.
Why? It makes no difference. Neither can be proven empirically. Point being, applying burden of proof to everything is a tactic your side employs in order to avoid taking the question of God seriously. That is, unless one can empirically prove God, we don't have to actually think about it and we can feel clever at the same time.
Um, burden of PROOF? I don't ever recall you claiming that a person who makes a claim has the burden of evidence. And by the way, saying someone has the burden of proof is a claim, right? So prove that someone who claims God exists has a burden of proof. You can't because it's more of a demand you try to impose than anything else. At least the way you try to use it.
Pithy is not how I would describe it. What would you consider solid evidence?
Ah, I see you already answered the question. Something subjectable to science. If it isn't then God can't exist.
You assume that the natural world just runs along without any God being necessary and without proof of this. It is something you just assume. For all you know you are constantly surrounded by God interacting with the natural world because He controls every instance of every interaction of all matter and energy. You cannot prove otherwise. You can give no evidence to the contrary except some vague 'something that can only be explained as divine'.
But it gets worse.
The obvious question is, why? Why should there be such?
No offense, but your distinctions are irrelevant to me. Belief or claim, I mean the same thing. That is, saying I believe God exists carries the same meaning to me as saying 'God exists'. Neither one burdens me with the requirement of proof to someone else. It will not be the case that you will one day stand before God and have the defense that no one proved Him to you. Whether you choose to affirm or deny God is your choice and doesn't rest on anyone else.
Now, it may be that you personally require evidence of a nature that can be 'formally observed and measured by objective third parties'. You should note, though, that this is nothing more than your own self-imposed criteria. Billions of people are convinced without your criteria. Running around and trying to impose it on others is futile. You think, 'I'm not doing that', but actually you are. Hence your trying to make the distinction between 'I believe God exists' and 'God exists'. You are trying to impose on them your standard for belief or proof or evidence or whatever would satisfy your criteria. You want them to acknowledge your view that mere belief is nothing more than wishful thinking (although you don't put it so directly) because the criteria you have for evidence hasn't been satisfied. In other words, belief doesn't count.
Well, one wouldn't dismiss the FSM simply because there were still starving people. That would be thoughtless. One would have to consider why there are starving people in spite of the claim. For instance, what are the claims about the FSM? Well, one is that it cares about starving people and food just magically appears (per you). Is it only that it cares about starving people and it's only purpose is to feed them or does it have other concerns as well? Does it not feed all the starving people because it would interfere with it's other concerns? What is it's overall goal?
To simply dismiss something because of one thing doesn't seem very smart to me.
You argue with everything? The reason for the change is what I stated: I changed the sense to something that I would challenge. That way the challenge makes sense. Good grief Drakk.
I did not ask for proof. I said the claim carries the burden of proof. And it does! It does not matter if a claim cannot be proven (or even evidenced) empirically - the burden is still there. You understand this, why are you pretending you do not?
Bullshit. The burden of proof is not something 'we' invented. If you make a claim of certainty you bear the burden of proof. The reason you are asked for evidence to your claim that God exists is because it is a claim worthy of challenge. I understand you dislike the challenge, but the claim of God is probably the grandest claim one can make. To cry foul that someone asks you to substantiate that claim is unreasonable.
You trivialize critical thinking with that quip. This is not just you, Drakk, it is everyone. Nobody has ever provided empirical evidence that God (any god for that matter) exists. Nothing. So for those of us with skeptical minds, the lack of evidence for the grandest possible claim is absolutely something we will raise in challenge.
I did not coin the name, Drakk. I would have called it burden of evidence . You may have noticed that I frequently write burden of proof / evidence. But, point of fact, the name is 'burden of proof'. Not my invention, and you really should have noticed that I always ask for evidence, not proof.
The burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. This is silly. You are actually pretending to not understand the well-known philosophical concept known as burden of proof?
Here is how I answered Tacos! when he asked that question: TiG @ 9.2.108 in " Why There Is Almost Certainly No God ".
No, it is that the lack of evidence means the claim of God is unjustified (and I am speaking of unjustified in the large; not personally unjustified). The lack of evidence does not mean there is no God.
For God to be necessary, I would need a convincing argument to that effect. Currently there is no supporting evidence that a god exists. You are trying to shift the burden of proof (a cliche tactic by the way). I do not claim 'there is no God'; I note that I am not convinced (by the evidence; lack thereof) that a god exists.
Your presumption of what I assume is wrong.
Because people believe a god exists. If a god is interacting with the natural world (per your belief) then we should see evidence of this. Claiming God is supernatural but yet interacts with the natural world comes with the logical consequence of that interaction being detectable as evidence. We do not know what dark energy / dark matter is but we do see the effects of it. Same idea.
Sorry but when you say 'God exists' (as in: there is no possible way that I am wrong ) you bear the burden of proof / evidence. You can complain all you want and call it unfair, stupid or whatever, but a claim of certainty bears the burden of proof / evidence. I realize that is uncomfortable for you but that does not mean the philosophical burden of proof is now, somehow, invalid or that you are personally exempted.
Well if God is going to damn me because he made me with a critical mind that does not accept what other human beings tell me but rather seeks convincing evidence and logic, I would ask Him why He is playing hide & seek games? Why not just provide evidence for His critical thinking creations? He is, after all, the creator and is in charge of each of our designs.
I am not imposing anything on you. If you come to a public forum and make a claim of certainty you bear the burden of proof / evidence regardless of whether I am there. Go to another forum and claim certainty. You will still bear the burden of proof / evidence. Yes, I understand that you cannot back up your claim of certainty. That, Drakk, is not me imposing something on you; that is a consequence of you choosing to make a claim of certainty.
makes me wonder if some of these religious people demand proof about claims made about politicians or the President .... or if they just believe the claims with no proof as they do with their God... one would think if they would want some kind of empirical evidence or proof for claims another makes about politicians or the President - then they would be more than happy to provide empirical evidence or proof for their claims of God or anything else... at least they'd be more consistent...
Funny thing about religion and politics, solid evidence and good reasoning is not necessarily required for someone to hold extremely strong views — even to the point of certainty.
Because your change is meaningless. It doesn't change anything so why do it? The issue isn't about what you may or may not defend. The issue is that some things can not empirically be proven to be true or false. And now you want to call me out for arguing? How about you just address the point???
If you claim that all claims carry the burden of proof, you are asking for proof. You can't try to make it out as if you are not. If someone states that God exists and you then claim the burden of proof is on that person to prove his claim, you are asking for proof. You can't divorce yourself from that.
I am not pretending. I categorically reject the idea that all claims have the burden of proof. At least in the sense you are using it. Much, if not most, of what people take to be true cannot be empirically proven one way or the other so claiming burden of proof is not supportable. It is faulty reasoning to know something cannot be proven one way or another and still insist that burden of proof applies. Since this is so, all that can be done is that each individual must determine for themselves what they believe to be the truth of a thing. If someone states 'God exists', that person has no burden of proof unless that person is demanding that you believe it, too. You cannot validly claim that the other person's claim is invalid unless you can prove that it isn't. All you can do is state you either don't believe that it's true or that you're not convinced.
Disagree for the reasons just stated.
I do not dislike the challenge. What I dislike is your stipulation for meeting the challenge. You have no basis for it yet argue as if you do. That is, if God exists, what makes you think you get to determine the criteria for determining the truth of it? You apparently find nothing wrong in stipulating to God the conditions in which you are prepared to recognize His existence. It doesn't seem to occur to you that perhaps God has His own methods that don't take your thoughts on the issue into account.
So, when I have attempted to substantiate the claim, you reject it on the grounds that it is subjective. Not my fault or problem. God has apparently designed it to be that way. I believe one of the reasons is that God isn't interested in proving His existence. God is interested in establishing relationships with His creations. Why would God need accreditation of His existence from the scientific community?
If I am trivializing critical thinking, I think it would only be your brand of critical thinking. That someone cannot provide you empirical, measurable evidence is sufficient for you, apparently, to go no farther on the subject. It doesn't seem to occur to you that there may be other ways of determining this. And even if you have, you reject them because they are subjective, as if subjective experience can't prove something true and real.
Yes. I believe you do so for tactical reasons. You have stated that it is impossible to know anything for certain. I believe you do so not because it is true. I think you believe things with certainty. I think you do so in order to actually get pinned down by what you say. In other words, as soon as someone tries to pin you down on what you've said, you state that you've stated in the past no one can know anything with certainty. Then, you go right back to making your point with certainty.
Yes, this is silly and I'm rapidly becoming bored with this. I understand perfectly well the concept. What you keep ignoring is my point that it cannot be applied to situations where there is no method in which to determine the truth of a thing. If there is no method of determining the truth of a thing (in the measurable, objective manner you desire) then there is no point or justification in claiming burden of proof. Apart from God, there is no method to prove prostitution is wrong or right. What people think about it depends on the assumptions they bring to the question. You can't claim one group's assumptions are better than the others without proving their assumptions and that puts us right back where we started.
Worse, demanding burden of proof treats God as some sort of natural property of nature rather than a distinct individual with a will of His own. If God sets things up so that the only way we can know Him is through faith, what do you think your burden of proof will matter?
And this is where your critical thinking goes catastrophically wrong. Lack of evidence doesn't mean the person is unjustified. If God exists then the believer is justified regardless of evidence. Can you not see that? What does it matter if, of a billion inhabitants of a planet, only one believes in God and God exists? That person is justified regardless of what the others believe. It doesn't make a difference if we are speaking generally or of the individual. Copernicus was justified because what he believed concerning the arrangement of the solar system was true. He wasn't justified because others believed Him. Imagine if he'd said Jupiter was the center rather than the sun and everyone believed him? Do you think that makes him justified?
I couldn't care less. What it takes to convince you wasn't the point. The point was that you cannot provide any empirical evidence at all that God doesn't control all and every aspect of the material nature of our universe from moment to moment. I can't prove that He does. That you believe God isn't necessary is based on assumption and not empirical evidence.
These are just statements without reasoning. You state God's involvement should be detectable but fail to explain why except for the false equivalency of the dark matter example. You just assert that it would be. The reason it's a false equivalency is that dark matter is just a part of what we call nature. You state that God is supernatural, but remove that supernaturalness by comparing Him to a natural process. Not sure how that works to show your point.
Guess we'll have to disagree.
Alternatively, you could do it His way.
Of course you are. You are presenting burden of proof as some universal law that applies everywhere and to everyone, like gravity. You are claiming, without evidence, that a person who claims that God exists is invalid simply because you say the magic words 'burden of proof'.
Explained this. You are being petty.
Read what I wrote. I explained this. You are ignoring what I write and simply arguing. To what end?
It is your right to ignore reality.
Again, you ignore what I wrote (proof / evidence) and continue arguing a strawman.
You are inventing your own rules Drakk. A claim of certainty bears the burden of proof / evidence regardless of the intent of the claim.
Correct. If I claimed that God does not exist then I bear the burden of proof / evidence.
Where do I claim to determine the criteria for determining the TRUTH of God's existence? How many strawman arguments are you going to pack into this post?
I do have the right to my own criteria, right?
If God exists and is the supreme entity I am confident God does not really care what I think. ( Relevance? )
Apparently. But you, et. al., believe God exists sans any evidence. So claiming 'God exists' naturally is challenged by critical thinkers. Do you find that to be unfair? Why?
Show these other ways. But if you offer only personal experiences, feelings, etc. then your evidence is no better than an individual claiming alien abduction. If you think that is something that should convince others you are kidding yourself.
See people believe things for all sorts of reasons. But when these beliefs are turned into claims in a public forum, well, the dynamics are a little different and challenges will be made. Do you consider it unfair to challenge publicly stated claims of certainty?
Good grief man you are presuming like crazy here. We cannot know anything in the real world with certainty because there is always the chance that new information will arise that contradicts our conclusion. The only place where we can have certainty is in formal systems of our own making - where we make the rules. Such as logic, arithmetic, etc.
All you are doing is lashing out at me. You are not making any arguments, just complaining, inventing new allegations and then complaining about them.
Yes, it sucks to be in your position. Sorry. Do not blame me because I dare challenge a claim of certainty.
Then quit complaining.
Wrong. You clearly do not understand the concept. The burden of proof / evidence does not magically fade away simply because you find yourself in the ' u n u s u a l' position of not having any way to satisfy the burden.
Here you go again. I purpose wrote "( and I am speaking of unjustified in the large; not personally unjustified)" and you pretend as though I am talking about unjustified to the person rather than unjustified in the large.
If you want someone to take you seriously, cease the strawman arguments.
If God exists then the belief is correct. The claim that God exists is, lacking suitable evidence, unjustified in the large . Someone can claim they were abducted by aliens. In the large, sans evidence, their claim is unjustified (by definition). If they actually were abducted then their claim is correct but it is still unjustified in the large . The words ' correct ' and ' justified ' have quite different meanings.
Again you argue a strawman. Never do I claim that there is no creator entity. Indeed I routinely note that a creator entity is possible. So me providing empirical evidence that there is no supreme entity is proper.
Fail to explain why? Because if God is to have any effect on the natural world He must engage it in some way. A change will be made in the world. If not, then God has not had any effect. The dark matter analogy (not an equivalency, so sick of you playing games) was designed to help in understanding. Clearly you have zero interest in understanding, just complaining.
Drakk feels the burden of proof / evidence for a claim of certainty does not apply to him. If a fact is inconvenient then just ignore it, eh?
And, I am not claiming that the assertion 'God exists' is invalid . I am simply noting that the claim of certainty bears the burden of proof.
This is perfect. This is what you constantly do and then blame me for not reading or ignoring what you say. You say 'correct' and then go on to show you have no idea what I was talking about or you do and you change the meaning to suit your own needs.
What you quoted has nothing to do with claiming God doesn't exist. It has everything to do with stating that a person's claim is invalid because it doesn't satisfy your requirements. If I state God exists and you state that my claim is not valid, you have the same friggin burden of proof that you claim I have. Do you get it now? According to your own rules, you can't declare my claim invalid without proving your own. You don't even follow your own rules!
Claiming 'God exists' is invalid (I take your meaning to be 'incorrect') is equivalent to making the claim 'God does not exist'. That bears the burden of proof too. Noting that the claim 'God exists' is unjustified (in the large) is simply noting that general justification has not been provided to support the claim. The burden of proof / evidence has not been met.
Where do you find me writing that the claim 'God exists' is invalid?
Correct. If I claim, in effect, 'God does not exist' I have the same burden of proof as you claiming 'God exists'. I have written this repeatedly.
I am watching you emotionally freak out, read what is not written, misread or ignore what is written and all with an attitude that I am stupid. Nicely done, Drakk.
If only you would actually read what I write you would see that I most definitely abide by the burden of proof / evidence. And, again, as much as you want it to be true, I did not invent the burden of proof.
Real simple:
The claim 'God exists' bears the burden of proof / evidence as a claim of certainty.
The claim 'God does not exist' bears the burden of proof / evidence as a claim of certainty.
The claim 'God exists' declares TRUTH, so does the claim 'God does not exist'. If you claim TRUTH do not get all bent out of shape if someone challenges your claim and cites the burden of proof / evidence.
If I state God exists....
I'm done with this. This has been a complete waste of time.
Your own doing.
Hate to say it, but I told you so!
All boiled down to nothing more than "Prove it".
Lol, the ironic thing about much of this is folks who make accusations like this are actually exercising one of the main precepts afforded by God.
Free will
Its pretty funny really ......
You think it was God who gave us free will?
An omniscient, omnipotent being who created us knowing that, in his eyes, we would be sinful?
Do we really have to do this again?
Clearly, you did not even read the discussion.
If you had you would see that I was arguing that the burden of proof applies to any claim and that both 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' bear the burden of proof. But also, and this is the important part, the burden of proof is interpreted as burden of proof / evidence where the claimer is challenged to deliver credible evidence - not literal proof.
So, if anything, your trolling comment should be: " nothing more than 'show me the evidence' ".
And, even then, that misses the balance of the discussion which was dealing with inexplicably odd interpretations of clear language and the wholesale rejection of the concept of philosophical burden of proof. Claiming, in effect, that this concept does not apply - that it is invented by me (or by atheists or ...).
Case in point, look at the very last remarkably wrong interpretation:
First of all that is exactly the principle I have been arguing regarding burden of proof. Any claim of certainty bears the burden of proof. Having argued this repeatedly it is bizarre to see Drakk present this as if informing me. I argue 'A' and Drakk deems me wrong and argues 'A' to show me my error.
I offered two responses to that hypothetical. The first deals with the idea of 'God exists' not being a valid claim - a new twist.
Here I am noting that the hypothetical brings in a condition that does not exist. That is, I have not deemed 'God exists' invalid. But then on the second part I address the hypothetical now that I weighed in on the 'invalid' part.
Note that I agree with Drakk's hypothetical (with the 'invalid' correction).
What was his reaction? He reads the first part where I deal with the 'invalid' part and then blows up presuming that I ignored his opening 'if' and thus ignored his hypothetical. He ignores the ellipses and ignores the next part where I answer the corrected hypothetical.
That kind of nonsense was most of the 'debate'.
What is the accusation that was made?
Still all boils down to nothing more than "Prove it" in the end.
All the rhetoric was nice, and some of it even mildly interesting, but look where it ends up.
That's the only possibility.
That only affirms that they are manipulated by god to vote how god wants.
That is your prerogative. Of course, if that were true, then god's choice of leaders is clearly questionable.
While possible, god doesn't necessarily have to go to that extreme. Any manipulation by god to influence one's vote means that free will is diminished to a degree.
No, free will is impossible when an outcome is already preordained. "Chopice" is just an illusion, as it will not affect the outcome in the least.
As I have repeatedly stated, free will is impossible with an omnipotent, omniscient god who has already determined the outcome.
If god "moves" anyone, then free will is diminished.
Happy to oblige.,
If god wants something, then it doesn't matter who chooses whom. "Choice" makes no difference whatsoever, as the outcome is certain regardless. "Choice" is irrelevant and pointless and has no effect whatsoever.
So much for "choice" then.
If god wanted Clinton, then voting wouldn't have mattered. So what's the point of elections?
Seriously? How often has this been explained to you? If an outcome is already determined by god, there is no possibility to change it. Therefore, there is no choice that can be made to affect the outcome in the slightest.
Not in the least. If god exists, there is no free will for anyone else.
If god knows the bank will be robbed, the robber cannot make any "choice" to alter that.
So now you're saying there is no free will. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
He must if he actually chooses the leaders.
The issue is whether go chooses a leader for us. Choosing in elections is meaningless if god already appoints someone.
Whether they wanted to or not. Therefore, their free will was usurped.
That statement negates any claim that god gives us free will. one choice does not free will make. And if god rules us, then it doesn't matter if we acknowledge it or not.
Real proof is objective, empirical, falsifiable, and verifiable. Anything else is probably subjective and anecdotal and not valid (or the very least, weak) proof.
If god is not part of the natural world, then logically, god cannot interact with or influence natural events. If he does, then god becomes part of the natural world and is subject to methods of detection or investigation.
Belief does not equal fact.
Demonstrably now, no matter what is written you return with the same platitude. Obviously no reading is taking place on your end.
I guess some people's opinions are a threat to those opposed to the President?
That's not an opinion that they are responding to it's fact. Excuse stupidity and ignorance all you wan't Tex however many of these dopes live in Texas and hold office there. Wow
Get back to me when you learn what an opinion is.
Speaking of delusional . . . and thinking . . . or should I say, not thinking . . . LOL!
Amazing that some people's opinions about an already-elected President is so terrifying to a few folks.
Bingo!
Yes, it's rather scary that a minority of bitter disaffected voters managed to elect one of the most ignorant buffoons the world has ever seen, and are now claiming it was their invisible wizard in the sky who made it happen.
That seems to upset you.
Is it because Trump won or because they believe in God?
Hey!
There are some who pray to God to intervene in high school football games...
Years ago, our basketball coach had a prayer before games and always said Now we got to get the man upstairs on our side
What an insult to God!
What is even more amazing is thr number of people who actually put stock in poll results. The folks doing the poll question anywhere from 100 to 1000 people in a geographic area where they are most likely to get the responses they expect. They then average said results and attempt to make it look like it is actually a national average. I had a friend several years ago who worked for Gallup doing polls who said he eventually quit because his bosses were upset because he was not getting the responses they wanted.
Maybe you should look up how their poll was structured, what questions were asked and how they chose the people to answer.. Your comment shows a complete ignorance of polling, hey use right ring ones if you wish, all comes out the same depending on how the poll is structured.
[deleted]
God always lets the team win that prays the loudest.
... and gives the better ex voto sacrifices...
Removed for context
Not terrifying......extremely disgusting.
The headline says terrifying.
is it wrong?
Depends on ones POV. To me it is disgusting. What's wrong with that?
Didn't say anything was wrong with it.
Don't think anything is wrong when expressing an opinion.
Do you feel something is wrong?
Nope. And since you feel that there is nothing wrong with my expressing my own opinion, why did you feel the need to find fault with my expressing my own POV in the first place?
[deleted]
What’s amazing is the number of Americans who want Putin to run our country.
Is it as amazing as the number of people who actually believe that Americans want a foreign leader to run our country?
I don't believe so!
And yet you pledge blind allegiance to Putin’s puppet.
I'd ask for you to prove such a ludicrous statement, but we both already know you can't.
Do you feel that you have to make stuff up in order to debate?
Debate you? Lol, no. [deleted]
Removed for context
It's the number of folks who support the turd in chief (about 34%) that's terrifying. Who knew there were that many where the education system failed them so terribly? 34% that's a lot!
While the vast majority of whites without college degrees voted for Trump, there are many among his sycophants who do have college degrees, they just happen to share the white nationalist, white supremacist vision Trump has for America. They want to repeal the civil rights act, voting rights act and build a big wall between them and the brown people (no wall on the northern border even though the President said we're not a nation if we don't have a border wall). That's the America Trumps followers long for, the America of their parents from the 1950's that was idolized by white dominated TV where the only people of color were maids, servants or white people in black face. So while yes, his followers have the lions share of abject morons and high school drop outs, they also welcome those who simply align ideologically and those who believe in their own racial or religious superiority.
Gawd chose the president? Or was it the 'fallen angel', Lucifer?
No , he wanted the job himself and took on the form of the Trump's opponent. Fortunately she lost.
I see. Hail the fetus?
I think kids are great !
YOU ?
"Kids" tend to annoy me. No matter their age. Too many show up here and spout childish nonsense.
Well done with lots of barbecue.
This can't be true unless God stuffed the ballot box.
He only has one vote after all ......
Does He get a vote in each country? What about local elections? And what about the countries where the elections are rigged and you're killed unless you vote for a specific person - what would happen to Him if He voted for the other person? Inquiring minds want to know.
Also, does He get to vote in the Republican or the Democratic primary?
[Deleted]
I know one of these dumb fuckers and his kids are so worried about him they talk about taking his guns away from him before he hurts someone.
The only election Jesus was in some guy named Barabbas won
These supporters are moronic imbeciles that can't see trump for what he really is, it's scary that supposed intelligent Americans have been duped by this disgraceful, disgusting, revolting, poor excuse for a human being.
My thoughts exactly. People voting for the emperor with no clothes. I used to wonder if they were just playing a role in his drama, but since they never get out of character I'll go with moronic imbeciles too.
That is exactly who Trump reminds me of. He has no idea what a fool he makes of himself, and his moronic followers just keep applauding him.
One day he will be so embolden as to go too far across the line and the people who now turn a blind eye to his self-worship and ignorance will suddenly see him for what he truly is. And I don't think that time is too far off.
I’ve seen some stupid shit, but the notion expressed in this discussion that God appoints all world leaders takes the supreme idiot prize. God needs to get a fucking hobby.
Don't you claim God doesn't exist?
If I say the word ‘God’, it doesn’t imply that I think God exists any more than saying the word ‘leprechaun’ implies that leprechauns exist.
I didn't think it did, hence my question to you.
Do you believe in God?
Are you new here? That’s a really stupid question.
We have engaged each other for well over 6 months now, at least. Does that make me new to you?
And if you do not believe in God, then this comment from you makes no sense:
Why would you state the something you don't even believe exists should do anything at all? Wouldn't that be impossible? Or do imaginary beings do things in your world?
Sarcasm escapes you.
The truth eludes you.
Lol - says the guy who thinks Donald Trump is honest. Can’t make this shit up.
And yet, you just did make shit up.
If you are going to say you didn't, then simply PROVE IT.
With facts and quotes, not just your opinion.
Yet most of your comments are opinion w/o any factual evidence at all