I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Why is neither side technically logical? As indicated, certainty is not an absolute, but one of those outcomes is far more likely then the other given what we *do* know about our universe. Logic, would be siding with the one that makes more sense rationally - which is atheism.
Because by definition, logic follows what is correct, and until there is proof, then neither is. I personally think that atheism also is more logical, but I still think that neither can be considered truly logical until proved to be 100% correct.
In the case of god however, it is impossible to prove a negative, so neither argument will ever be 100% correct. So, it is logical to side with the highly likely, or the highly unlikely?
I respect agnosticism to a certain point, but agnosticism seems to regard religion and atheism on equal grounds, and they're hugely out of balance in favour of atheism - at least with regards to rational thought.
. . .Meaning that that statement too is unprovable, because it is a negative! That made my mind slightly hurt. . .that is, if my mind had nerves :P -----------
So, it is logical to side with the highly likely, or the highly unlikely?
the highly likely, though the most logical would be to side with neither. On agnosticism, I respect it, but I do agree with you on that it seems to regard atheism and religion on ewual grounds of likelyness.
In the case of god however, it is impossible to prove a negative, so neither argument will ever be 100% correct. So, it is logical to side with the highly likely, or the highly unlikely? I respect agnosticism to a certain point, but agnosticism seems to regard religion and atheism on equal grounds, and they're hugely out of balance in favour of atheism - at least with regards to rational thought.
I can see the likeliness in both sides, but it is very difficult to compare. Why is a higher being unlikely? To our eyes, it may be magic, which is not real, obviously, but to the past cell phones were magic, even phones and cars were magic in the age of telegrams and horses. My point is that you've got atheism, which is basically everything we know for certain and assuming there is nothing (or nothing sentient) beyond our understanding. Then you've got Christianity, which bases itself on stories that could be made up or hallucinations, or could be definite truth of what awaits us in the afterlife. No matter how false it could be, it's still some piece in the puzzle of life. Even if you believe it is absolutely false, you must at least look at it objectively.
I can see the likeliness in both sides, but it is very difficult to compare. Why is a higher being unlikely? To our eyes, it may be magic, which is not real, obviously
Why is a higher being unlikely? That's easy. There's no evidence for it. At all. None. Not a shred.
And why do you say magic isn't real? And that it's so obvious that magic isn't real.. but you put credence to a higher spiritual power? I find it confusing that you think one is so obviously unlikely and the other likely.
To play Devil's Advocate for a second (or Christian's Advocate) there is proof that the tooth fairy was an anecdotal confabulation constructed to create joy in children who are extremely pissed that they just lost a tooth, while it is unknown with God. ----------- One scary thing about an after-school program I go to every now and then that is Christian: There was one time in a chapel service when they got one of the councilors to hide in the organ tier and speak in an echoey mic through the speakers to convince children that he is God speaking to them, to prove his existence. Pathetic, really.
Why is a higher being unlikely? That's easy. There's no evidence for it. At all. None. Not a shred. And why do you say magic isn't real? And that it's so obvious that magic isn't real.. but you put credence to a higher spiritual power? I find it confusing that you think one is so obviously unlikely and the other likely. I think both are equally silly.
Because there is no such thing as magic. We call things magic when we can't find the logic or science behind it, so magic is a mythical concept. Evidence would be the Bible, maybe not a good source, but a record of what these people claimed happened. Consider it a testimony. Maybe you think they are liars or insane, but it is still a piece in the puzzle. I'm still not saying that it means anything, but those who take the Bible as truth would be assuming that it is true, and those who do not would assume it was false. A higher being is easily possible (as well as possibly nonexistant), but not by current descriptions because we can't really give scientific qualities to a god. Science is what we understand of the world, and there is much that we don't understand of the world.
One scary thing about an after-school program I go to every now and then that is Christian: There was one time in a chapel service when they got one of the councilors to hide in the organ tier and speak in an echoey mic through the speakers to convince children that he is God speaking to them, to prove his existence. Pathetic, really.
That scares me, even though I am a Christian. You should seriously talk to these people and tell them that they should be trying to use some form of logic to convince these children to become Christian. But that's really awful.
If Harry Potter was written a religious text would you be as quick to dismiss magic? I still would - that is, unless someone can conjure fire out of thin air & fly on a broom stick.
You're right. The bible isn't a good source of evidence - in fact, we even know there parts of the bible didn't make the 'final cut'. The word of 'God' doesn't need editing does it?
And while this thread is purely Christianity vs Atheism, it begs the question - which religion is correct? They can't all be right.
Perhaps you're right, god could be easily possible, but *highly* improbable.
It's quite literally the oldest trick in the book. Temples in Greece that have been excavated revealing secret crawlspaces under statues of Gods. Records also show that people would go to these and 'speak to a God' who was in reality a priest hiding in a tunnel.
Evidence would be the Bible, maybe not a good source, but a record of what these people claimed happened. Consider it a testimony.
If I write in a book a story of fairies, trolls and goblins in my back garden, and touted it as the truth, people would think I was crazy, because the only 'evidence' I presented was my testimony. The same goes for the Bible. Testimony does not equal evidence, at least not in a scientific sense, therefore it is logical to assume there is no God. If evidence indicating the existance of a God were to be found, then and only then it would be logical to believe in a God. The same goes for magic by the way.
If Harry Potter was written a religious text would you be as quick to dismiss magic? I still would - that is, unless someone can conjure fire out of thin air & fly on a broom stick.
You mean a weird religious text that assumes humans have the power to fly on a broomstick and conjure fire? Obviously I'd dismiss it. Most of the time God (should he exist) doesn't reveal himself because then everyone believes in him only because they have seen him, which is not what he wants.
You're right. The bible isn't a good source of evidence - in fact, we even know there parts of the bible didn't make the 'final cut'. The word of 'God' doesn't need editing does it?
Regardless, it is the only record of what may or may not have happened. I was only pointing out that you said there was no evidence, and it is a source of evidence.
Perhaps you're right, god could be easily possible, but *highly* improbable.
I'm saying that while the reliability of the source is questionable, whether or not the facts are true is close in likeliness, simply because we cannot understand whether or not they are possible to commit by a higher being. Still, by science and logic it does lean slightly in favor of atheism, so if that's what you wanted to hear, we'll let some other people share some thoughts on here.
If evidence indicating the existance of a God were to be found, then and only then it would be logical to believe in a God.
The only evidence that could lean in favor of the existance of God would be something that could not be commited by normal human beings. That kind of evidence would normally end up becoming false evidence since it doesn't make logical sense. Do you see the paradox? That's why being a Christian generally requires a lot of faith in what you can't see. Some might call it stupid, but I find it no stupider than assuming there is no afterlife. Then there's really no point to your life, since you will die. No offense to atheism, but all to often I've been criticized for having faith in what has no proof, so I wanted to point that out.
thisisnotanalt, This comment makes me think that either you aren't reading or aren't understanding my posts. That's fine if you don't, but don't make irrelevant commentary on my posts. I feel my argument was valid, sound, and - at the very least - logically compelling.
The only evidence that could lean in favor of the existance of God would be something that could not be commited by normal human beings.
This sort of claim cannot possibly be made. If you know that there exists some evidence such that we cannot cognize it, then how do have access to this sort of information? The only way to demonstrate the existence of some evidence to which we do not have access would have to be some sort of a priori deductive argument.
