ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

701 62279
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,953 posts
Viceroy

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 701 Replies
Ntech
offline
Ntech
228 posts
Farmer

@Fishpreferred


Time is not a force. Time is a dimension. Time does not need to be created. At all. Nor does the universe.

Exactly what I was pointing out.


I'm addressing the fact that your statement is completely groundless.

And I'm addressing the fact that we are pondering why God does things, which means we agree that He exists.


Well, no. We can't merit punishment for something that's been forced upon us through duplicity and outright sabotage.

We owe Him because He created us. We do what He tells us to, and He is not that controlling.


In other words, paradise is reserved for the gullible.

In other words, paradise is for those who merit it.


Therefore, He is not "a Creature that is not acted upon or modified by any force."

How?


Okay, so if God wants good little robots who do exactly as they're told, He should make those. If He wants fallible autonomous beings who are not subject to His will, He should not torture them for failing to conform to His will.

If we did not have free will and use it to merit heaven, we would not be fit for heaven for we were coerced into that path of life.


Which, as I pointed out, is not proof.

Which is proof that it did not create what it used.


Because atheists are just inherently evil for not believing in one particular type of thing?

Because atheists do not yet believe in God.


Just where do you get that idea?

He tests us. He does not make it impossible to attain heaven, or He would just put us in hell anyway.

@Doombreed


No, what we are saying is that they might have just spontaneously came to existence.

lol. Explain how they "spontaneously [magically popped just like that] ... to existence."


Possibly even nothing.

Not logic. That sounds like fallacious reasoning. According to you, something can just pop right into existance where it was not before.


It's a theory. And in my humble opinion more correct than anything you've posted in this thread so far At least it makes a certain kind of sense. Since yours doesn't, where do you base it on?

Good. You're beginning to understand!

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,971 posts
Justiciar

lol. Explain how they "spontaneously [magically popped just like that] ... to existence."

When you are done trying to make my argument look ridiculous you can explain why it can't first. Physicists think they might have. Anything you can provide as evidence to the contrary? if so I am sure they will appreciate your massive contribution to the Big Bang cosmological model.

Once again, if I knew how they can come to existence on their own, I'd probably be nominated for the Nobel Prize. So would you if you could definitely prove that they can't.

Not logic. That sounds like fallacious reasoning. According to you, something can just pop right into existance where it was not before.

Just because it's illogical does not mean it's impossible. You can start by proving why it can't.

Good. You're beginning to understand!

You misunderstood me. I was referring to the theory I posted before, which you denied (hence the "no&quot in the opening part of that segment.

Specifically, this:

I am of the mind that we don't. A lot of theological theories assume the presence of a much more passive God. Spiritually speaking, if said being exists, I doubt it keeps being actively involved in the Universe. It seems much more probable that God, even Christianity's god, would "jumpstart" the Universe (possibly not even create it, just put in motion some of the events), became actively involved for a bit to show the way when mankind was still a younger species, but gradually withdraw. See how we fare on our own. If you believe in such things, judgement has to necessarily take place after death, but it is on a more individual basis. We wouldn't be judged as a species.

Which you denied presenting your own theory. What I am saying, is that at least the theory above, makes sense, unlike yours, and asked where you base yours on. I didn't mean I agree with your denial of this theory.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
228 posts
Farmer

@Doombreed


When you are done trying to make my argument look ridiculous you can explain why it can't first. Physicists think they might have. Anything you can provide as evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence to support your claims.


Just because it's illogical does not mean it's impossible.

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.


What I am saying, is that at least the theory above, makes sense, unlike yours, and asked where you base yours on. I didn't mean I agree with your denial of this theory.

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.


if said being exists, I doubt it keeps being actively involved in the Universe. It seems much more probable that God, even Christianity's god, would "jumpstart" the Universe (possibly not even create it, just put in motion some of the events), became actively involved for a bit to show the way when mankind was still a younger species, but gradually withdraw. See how we fare on our own. If you believe in such things, judgement has to necessarily take place after death, but it is on a more individual basis. We wouldn't be judged as a species.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
250 posts
Shepherd

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Is that not faith?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,971 posts
Justiciar

There is no evidence to support your claims.

Yes, because my position is simply that physicists think it is possible. Not definite, simply possible. I don't need to prove anything. Unless you mean prove that physicists think so, in which case, refer to my first post. On the contrary, it is you who keeps saying that it is impossible, so, as it stands, it's you who need to prove your case. Not the other way around.

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.

Wrong. Logic, as you define it, follows our perception of the laws of the physical world. This is vastly different than the laws themselves, which function often differently than we perceive them. That leads to some crazy stuff happening, often on the realm of unimaginable (what happens to time according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a good example. There's a lot more in Quantum physics).

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.

I am not refuting yours. I am asking where you base it on. As for where I base this one on, it's not my theory. It's just one I associate more with. Why? because it's simpler, more refined, easier to believe than some vengeful, vindictive, paranoid psychopath obsessed with worship creating the Universe. Because it does not have anywhere near as many holes in the reasoning. Take your pick.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.

Whereas yours is obviously based on a ton of evidence that you haven't presented ever since the start of this discussion. Boofuss is right. That's why it's called "faith". It's about believing. It's not proven. It cannot be proven. It's a deeply personal and spiritual matter. That's why the notion of proof of God's existence is utter rubbish.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
228 posts
Farmer

@Boofuss


Is that not faith?

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.


Yes, because my position is simply that physicists think it is possible.

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.


I am not refuting yours. I am asking where you base it on. As for where I base this one on, it's not my theory. It's just one I associate more with. Why? because it's simpler, more refined, easier to believe than some vengeful, vindictive, paranoid psychopath obsessed with worship creating the Universe. Because it does not have anywhere near as many holes in the reasoning. Take your pick.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.


Whereas yours is obviously based on a ton of evidence that you haven't presented ever since the start of this discussion. Boofuss is right. That's why it's called "faith". It's about believing. It's not proven. It cannot be proven. It's a deeply personal and spiritual matter. That's why the notion of proof of God's existence is utter rubbish.

I disagree heartily.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,971 posts
Justiciar

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

Since it is quite liberal, it does not state much more than we already knew. That it may or may not be possible to have that. Which is how it has been from the beginning. Hence why it is you who needs to prove why it is impossible.

Also Argument from Ignorance. You are assuming your position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.

Ok let's see

Thought-Terminating Cliche
Argumentum Ad Lapidem (so much of that one)
Red Herring as you didn't give me the basis of your own spiritual theory.

I think that about sums up the basic things that are wrong with this

I disagree heartily.

Why is that?

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
250 posts
Shepherd

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.

Which reason is that? Evidence based scientific claims are not "blind following".

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.

Something being a theory doesn't make it not true.

I disagree heartily.

Faith is believing in something without evidence or proof. You have no proof beyond personal feeling that your God exists. If you do have proof, you can present that, like scientists do with their theories, which are backed up with their evidence as far as they can see it, based in math and their respective sciences, following on from what has already been discovered and which is known as true as far as can be determined.

FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
3,144 posts
Archduke

Exactly what I was pointing out.
So, given that you apparently concur that the universe doesn't need to be created, there's no need for God.

And I'm addressing the fact that we are pondering why God does things, which means we agree that He exists.
No, it doesn't. Think about it: Where and how would that line of argument ever work?
~~~~
Bill: Going into space is impossible. NASA just puts on elaborate shows to get government funding.
Ted: If NASA is lying about space travel, why would the Russians accept their claim of reaching the moon first?
Bill: Since we're both talking about NASA lying, that means we agree that NASA is lying.
Ted: Gosh, you're right, Bill. I never thought about it that way.
~~~~
Yeah, I'm not buying it.

We owe Him because He created us. We do what He tells us to, and He is not that controlling.
"Do this or I will make you suffer eternal ****ation!" isn't just a friendly suggestion.

In other words, paradise is for those who merit it.
So, why does God favour the gullible?

How?
By not corresponding to either of the only two ways for something to be "not acted upon or modified by any force".

If we did not have free will and use it to merit heaven, we would not be fit for heaven for we were coerced into that path of life.
By God, thereby making Him a sadistic tyrant.

Which is proof that it did not create what it used.
No, it isn't. Proof means that there is no possible way of reasoning any alternative.

He tests us. He does not make it impossible to attain heaven, or He would just put us in hell anyway.
Now, this is clearly a different point altogether. Previously, you stated that He never gives someone more than they can handle. I would argue that this is contradicted by every depression-related suicide ever.
Now, you appear to be saying that everyone is capable of meriting entry to heaven, regardless of circumstance, but that clearly isn't correct. If heaven is only accessible through devotion to the deity you believe in, anyone who has simply never heard of Him is automatically screwed through no fault of their own.

lol. Explain how they "spontaneously [magically popped just like that] ... to existence."
Well, you see, this magic man waved his mighty hands and there it was...
Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, that's your stance on the subject. How silly of me to confuse quantum field theory with magic.

According to you, something can just pop right into existance where it was not before.
Yes, because that's part of a reasonably well-founded cosmological model to which he ascribes. I don't agree with it, but, then I'm not required to.

Good. You're beginning to understand!
Well, you clearly aren't.

Logic follows the laws of the physical world, as we know it. If something is not logically possible, than it is not physically logical either.
Then have I got a treat for you! It's the Wheel of Cognitive Dissonance:

https://imgur.com/E3WL8FO.png
You can pick any three as the defining traits of the deity you believe in.

Refute my theory, and I shall refute yours.
Well, if we're playing that game, you'll have to refute the teapot before anything else.

Speculative. That is not a theory but assumptions based on a lack of evidence.
What are you talking about? It's an inference about the world. Yes it's speculative; it says so right off the bat. What lack of evidence are you suggesting this to be based on?

Faith is based on reason, it is not blind following.
Faith is based on credulity, as you have demonstrated.

Than your position is a theory, nothing more.
Than so is gravity.

I shall choose to remain devout to my God.
Go ahead and do that. In the meantime, though, how about getting back to the point?
Ntech
offline
Ntech
228 posts
Farmer

@Fishpreferred


So, given that you apparently concur that the universe doesn't need to be created, there's no need for God.

I mean that the universe was created.


No, it doesn't. Think about it: Where and how would that line of argument ever work?

If we are wondering about God's attributes, we necessarily must acknowledge His existance.


"Do this or I will make you suffer eternal ****ation!" isn't just a friendly suggestion.

No. He is saying "Do this and I will give you eternal life!"


So, why does God favour the gullible?

God favors the faithful.


Now, this is clearly a different point altogether. Previously, you stated that He never gives someone more than they can handle. I would argue that this is contradicted by every depression-related suicide ever.

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.


Well, you see, this magic man waved his mighty hands and there it was...
Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, that's your stance on the subject. How silly of me to confuse quantum field theory with magic.

No. I state that God is a self-existing Creature that was the First Mover.


Yes, because that's part of a reasonably well-founded cosmological model to which he ascribes. I don't agree with it, but, then I'm not required to.

How is it reasonable for something to just pop into existance? Surely something had to put it in motion.


Well, if we're playing that game, you'll have to refute the teapot before anything else.

I refute the teapot simply by pointing out that my thesis is based on motion, and the fact that everything has been moved by something else. The teapot is basically a unsupported claim that a teapot exists in the outer reaches of our solar system. It has no proofs whatsoever.


What are you talking about? It's an inference about the world. Yes it's speculative; it says so right off the bat. What lack of evidence are you suggesting this to be based on?

A judge cannot judge in the "what if," neither can you pronounce a "theory" based on a speculative scenario.


Faith is based on credulity, as you have demonstrated.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.


Than so is gravity.

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
250 posts
Shepherd

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.

If someone could handle it, they wouldn't "give up". Suicide isn't "giving up", it's the recourse of someone who feels that there is no other way out of a situation or a mindset. It's not something done lightly in the vast majority of cases.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.

It isn't, it's based on belief without proof. As it says in the Bible - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

What are those demonstrable truths?

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.

That just &quotroves" that the world exists, which is also subject to question in some circles, there's the whole "are we a simulation" thing.

"The world exists" isn't proof of God, God is a theory for why the world exists and it isn't something which is proved or able to be proved in any way beyond faith which as we've found is still "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,016 posts
Viceroy

@Ntech

1. To make this clear once and for all: We are not claiming to prove anything regarding the Big Bang. So please stop acting as if we did.

2. Your claims are reasonable but only under two assumptions:
a) that causality is always true and linear;
b) that God exists.
Assumption a) is reasonable but not proven, as causality might be different or missing on the quantum level. Quantum entanglement implies instantaneous transmission of information independent of distance, which is contrary to conventional physics including causality. A kind of backwards causation might even be possible.
Assumption b) cannot be proven.

3. A claim being reasonable does not make it automatically true.

4. Spiritual faith is based on dogmas, not reason. I think you confuse it with trust, which is based on experience.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
228 posts
Farmer

@Boofuss


If someone could handle it, they wouldn't "give up".

Sometimes people turn back just before they reach the end of their journey. It's called despair.


It isn't, it's based on belief without proof. As it says in the Bible - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1.

What are those demonstrable truths?

I can demonstrate that God exists. Look at my previous post where I outlined my theory.


That just &quotroves" that the world exists, which is also subject to question in some circles, there's the whole "are we a simulation" thing.

"The world exists" isn't proof of God, God is a theory for why the world exists and it isn't something which is proved or able to be proved in any way beyond faith which as we've found is still "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1".

There you go. Nobody can prove that it wasn't God, and nobody can prove it was the Big Bang. You have faith too!

@Hahiha
Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,016 posts
Viceroy

Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?

If you realize that reality is not proof of God's existence and faith not based on reason, then yes. Have you read my comment at all?
FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
3,144 posts
Archduke

If we are wondering about God's attributes, we necessarily must acknowledge His existance.
Nice tu quoque, except you know it isn't true. Here, I'll give you another example:
~~~~
Geek1: Every version of Superman to date is totally ridiculous. Like, flying, heat vision? And he's powered by the colour of the sun? Please.
Geek2: No, that's just the modern version. The original Superman was just very strong and athletic because his home planet had much stronger gravity.
RandomTroll: LOL u 2 r retard 4 beleveng superman is real
~~~~
Obviously, RandomTroll's statement is incorrect. Now stop dodging the subject.

No. He is saying "Do this and I will give you eternal life!"
"And if you don't do it the way I like I will make you suffer eternal ****ation!"

God favors the faithful.
So, why does God favour the gullible?

I would argue that sometimes people give up, even when they can handle it.
Then what defines whether they can handle it?

No. I state that God is a self-existing Creature that was the First Mover.
Which in no way conflicts with my reductio of a magic man waving his mighty hands and springing forth a universe. So why does God get a pass for magically popping things into being just like that?

How is it reasonable for something to just pop into existance? Surely something had to put it in motion.
That's what I would argue, but of course, I would know better than to claim that that something is an intelligent superbeing that triggers causal cascades from nothing.

The teapot is basically a unsupported claim that a teapot exists in the outer reaches of our solar system. It has no proofs whatsoever.
Correct. And just as you refute the teapot, I refute your God.

A judge cannot judge in the "what if," neither can you pronounce a "theory" based on a speculative scenario.
Correct again. Therefore, neither you nor he have any theory on this matter. You were simply both using a colloquial expression for your inferences, which are unproven speculative ideas.

Faith is based on reason, it is the upholding of demonstrable truths.
No, it isn't.

Gravity is demonstrable, your theory is not; whereas my theory's proof is the existance of the world around us.
1 Uh ... what theory? I think you may have me confused with someone else.
2 You have no theory. You have an inference.
3 The existance of the world is no more proof of your god than it is proof of Snobgobgyz'zaz.

I can demonstrate that God exists. Look at my previous post where I outlined my theory.
You have no theory, as you yourself explained.

There you go. Nobody can prove that it wasn't God, and nobody can prove it was the Big Bang.
Argument from ignorance. Nobody can prove it wasn't Snobgobgyz'zaz.

Thankyou. I take it our debate has ended?
Since you failed to support your premises 2 and 4, I suppose it is. Now bow before the majesty of Snobgobgyz'zaz the Merciful, creator of gods.
Showing 616-630 of 701

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More