AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → God - Myth or reality?

192 39273
TheAtheist
offline
TheAtheist
132 posts
Peasant

Obviously my screen name says what I believe but I encourage all ( Buddhist, Atheist, Christians, Taoist, Muslims, etc) to give me a good clear cut answer on if god really does exist. I would sincerely love to know what all of you think. That does not mean I won't argue with your idea or belief.

  • 192 Replies
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

you cant prove God isnt real. AGAIN i have my opinion you have yours.


I require to prove God isn't real any more than I require to prove magic pixies aren't real. So long as there is no objective evidence of an incredible claim, that's all that's required to justify not believing a positive claim of existence. The claim of existence however does hold such a responsibility to provide this evidence of existence. Again I really don't give a flying Spaghetti Monster if it's your opinion or not, what makes it true and valid is what's important.

thats story's 100% true. it was the most amazing thing that ever happened to me.


I would hardly call a rainy day evidence of God. It seems to me both you and these gangsters are far to easily impressed.
stormwolf722
offline
stormwolf722
227 posts
Nomad

it was a giant gray cloud in the middle of the day in summer! right when my pastor prayed. whatever im done talking. you clearly cant accept that your opinion isnt always right. if you were there you'd be amazed.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

it was a giant gray cloud in the middle of the day in summer! right when my pastor prayed. whatever im done talking. you clearly cant accept that your opinion isnt always right. if you were there you'd be amazed.


No I wouldn't have been. It doesn't matter how gray the cloud was and I don't see how it being summer makes a difference either. I also don't claim to always be right. I do however care about the validity of those opinions. If I can be given reliable objective evidence of a claim I would change my position. A story about it raining because presumably a pastor prayed is not objective. This claim can't be verified and we have no idea that the two events even correlate.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

You know, copying and pasting something that's been circulating around Facebook for the last coupla years doesn't really constitute an 'argument' in favour of Gods existence, it just proves the clique-like nature and moral panic that goes on with conservative Christians. Prove God exists, or at least try to, instead of reposting that crap.

1) A valid point.

some people could have never seen it b4. you dont know EVERYONE has.

2) Beside the point.

Yes but it doesn't contribute anything to the argument, at all, does it?

3) The point.

T_T arrogant.. Someday the lord will come back to earth. His glory will be so bright it will shine through hell.

4) Beside the point... very far beside the point.

well it may not to you. ima stop arguing cuz its stupid. i have my opinion u have yours.

Poor argument. If you're going to say something, you should be capable of backing it up. If it's something that isn't a "serious" topic (like music, etc), then I generally wouldn't care. But this is your lifestyle, and this is what you believe made everything - it's a big deal.

The one standing request that I and others keep making is simply to prove that he is real.

it hones ones debating skills and helps people to learn the opinions of others.

I've definitely gotten better over the years I've been posting, and still am.

it seems that you are perhaps less aware of how arrogant you are. Arguing is never stupid, provide that it's over an interesting subject,

The extent of the points in favor of debating about this topic is very large, it branches off into finances, morale, law, a lot of topics through one form or another.

How is it arrogant to no believe in something without evidence?

Because you can't comprehend God.
Unless you're in Soviet Russia.

you cant prove God isnt real.

I cannot prove a negative - that's a fact.
However, can you prove that God is real? It's a simple question.

AGAIN i have my opinion you have yours.

What follows this does not count as backing it up.

I have evidence of seeing miracles.

Which is eye witness testimony with the fact that you already believed in God.
The reason you believing in God is a factor into this is because it shows a lack of logic I'm sorry to say. You can pass off anything as Gods creation - and that is indeed what has happened, but the truth is we don't learn anything, and we don't retain independence because of our own belief in this deity.

nice necklace. how can you be so sure God is real? and why do you believe such s***

Gangsters' rebellious phases appear to be helpful. Granted, I don't agree with their attitude (meaning it could be better), but the point is what matters, not presentation, not oration - the point.

I would hardly call a rainy day evidence of God. It seems to me both you and these gangsters are far to easily impressed.

Err.
I'll speak for myself -- a pretty sweet happening, surely, but not meaning God did it. And even if it were - of all things to do, would be to help show 3 Gangsters a hint of him?
Kind of pathetic, considering there were things like the Hundred Years War, based on the Hierarchy (Kings and Queens) which were at the time, a religious thing - being as you know, they were the ones chosen by God.

Or the Crusades, which brought in the unwealthy Christians to fight with reason. Religion was used more as a weapon, and to quote myself:
Indeed, there are arguments that Christians do not follow that idealogy, but what about if God didn't follow previous Christians' idealogy? If he didn't, he didn't do anything to stop people being murdered in the name of him, he didn't bother aiding those resisting Christianity with undeniable proof. If you follow Christianity, then sorry, but you are siding with Gods contradictory and pretty merciless behaviour (or lack of behaviour).


you clearly cant accept that your opinion isnt always right.

*Sniff sniff*. I smell hypocricy.

No, but really. If I will again speak for myself I'll say that I need no opinion because there is nothing to talk about - there's no proof of God ever doing anything, end of.

Even if there were, we already have more logical theories (The Big Bang) that cater our arrogant needs of a good reason.

- H
McJibberLaugh
offline
McJibberLaugh
25 posts
Nomad

Honestly you really shouldn't bring this to armor games because religion is thought of differently by everyone so you shouldn't be arguing about that.

-M

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Honestly you really shouldn't bring this to armor games because religion is thought of differently by everyone so you shouldn't be arguing about that.

I'll give you a brief explanation of what I think a debate should be.

2 Sides, both presenting their point and the proof / evidence / logic behind it. If it is philosophical then points must be both seen and understood, usually in these debates you'll find more accuracy in one point than another - which is what commonly splits them in the first place. If not, then it is subjective values (through sometimes objective points) battling against subjective values, where the most logical one (which is sadly still subjective) would be chosen, based on the situation.

However, if it is a debate about this, then it would need to be two sides, debating with their points and the proof / evidence / logic behind it, and then clarifying what exactly is wrong with them, why it may not be a valid theory / belief / etc. If it's proven invalid, the other side doesn't win - the losing side does because it's the one that gained something.
If it's proven valid but not as backed up as the other point, but there hasn't been a solid conclusion (being as they're mutually exclusive but there isn't enough evidence supporting either one), then more research is to be done.

If there is a solid conclusion, then... there you go.

In this case, we have two sides, one without all the answers, but a lot of the "gaps" filled up logically, with observation, research and a mindset for progress. Not everything has been (or even could be) answered, but that's what we're trying to do - answer that question itself.

The other side has a basis of beliefs that is individual to each person, using subjective means to clarify or justify ones belief in said religion. The main speartip of this argument is "Faith" and this gives the perception of security to people who believe in it, being as it answers questions unknown (such as the meaning of life), and gives the sense that you're being forever guided / watched.

The problem I would first give to this, is that its effects have been very negative. Being as the answers are already there in the case of religion, there is no need to look for anything else, and there have been deaths of Scientists because of their research, that is contradictory to the Church's (in this case) beliefs.

If you wish to believe in it, I personally couldn't care less. However if you intend to spread it, I will go against it as much as I can because it is not the logical choice.

We also have the point of indoctrination - whereas belief in Religion becomes virtually involuntary.

Anyway, the point is that we can settle this, and in a way it already is settled, it's just the attempt to convince the other side.

- H
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

I cannot prove a negative - that's a fact.


Well you can, but not required to. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html


Honestly you really shouldn't bring this to armor games because religion is thought of differently by everyone so you shouldn't be arguing about that.


This is just the place to talk about it, or did you not notice the title of this section of the form? "World Events, Politics, Religion, Etc."
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

Well you can, but not required to. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ⦠heory.html

A nice read, thank you for that :P

Okay, so I can prove a negative, but whilst in this case I can't, there hasn't been a proven positive (specifically the existance of God) to make that a requirement anyway :P

If I however, mentioned that there are not ants on my desk, and then proceeded to check it (finding nothing of course), I would then prove a negative.
Simply put that's what the small first part of MGW's link says. Although, I did realize a fair bit of it relied on the assumptions / statements to be inaccurate, or at least to me, being as this:
it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition

is already known to me, and many other people on these forums :P

The inaccurate bit would be me saying "There are no ants".
It would help if I used a fictional thing (dragons?) in this case, but you get the point I hope

I feel like I'm saying nothing useful. I am tired indeed :/

The last part of it is pretty nice and a good example, although not necessarily something I didn't know before

- H
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Well the "can't prove a negative" is an example of where I have changed my opinion when given evidence. Showing claims such as this "you clearly cant accept that your opinion isnt always right." to be false assertion.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

to be false assertion.

Commonly overused, I hate it when people say that to me in real life actually - it shows to me that they do not understand my point, and furthermore that they don't want to.

Which basically means any debate I was trying to make is useless. :P

- H
Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

Ok I hate how Christians say you can't disprove God because there is no evidence well guess what I can using your same method!
I'm going to say that I have evidence that God doesn't exist, but I'm not going to show you. You can't disprove my statement making it 100% true!

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Just a couple of thoughts rattling around in my head I would like to get out while they are still fresh.

I was just looking at evidence of absence arguments, debating on if one can claim evidence of absence for god in general. One thing pointed out was that god's existence is a very ambiguous with different meanings to many different people. In the face of a lack of positive evidence, isn't this evidence that any claim of god is made up, thus evidence of absence?

Also I was just watching something where Steven Hawking points out how God was not needed to form the universe. They had a follow up where Dr.Michio Kaku rebuts with something along the lines of "Maybe God created the multiverse being the thing that got the quantum strings vibrating." The problem here is these strings make up not only this reality but all possible reality. If God was outside of this, that would put him outside all possible reality. In other words it's as good as saying God isn't possible to exist.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,025 posts
Nomad

well guess what I can using your same method!

Na na na na na na?
You shouldn't feel smart for doing that Sssssnnaakke. :P

isn't this evidence that any claim of god is made up, thus evidence of absence?

Well, not neceessarily. People do believe that God is real and whilst from their point it is made up, there's still the possibility.
I wouldn't say it's evidence of absence, although I see where you're coming from (and you gave me a headache thinking about that :P ).

In other words it's as good as saying God isn't possible to exist.

We did talk about this on another thread where soemone was trying to blend The Big Bang with God (not the Big Bang thread). He was trying to make it so that God was outside of our time and space... but it didn't work out. :P

- H
brp47
offline
brp47
580 posts
Peasant

myth.

reason?

at first it was god created everything and anything on earth.

owned: scientists proved evolution from cellular life and other life forms

them... god created the starting point for all life and let it grow.

i meen come on stop changing it!! it sais that god created man, if god created everything to let it evolve from a starting point, he is saying man have not evolved ever, which is false.


also i saw the bible the other day saying 'new and improved version'

i meen wth surely there was one original and it should be kept as it is.


want my own theory of what jesus is?
he was a travelling druid or expert with medicine, stories spread of his healing skills that were ahead of his time, and like all stories it grew into something larger than reallity.

hojoko
offline
hojoko
508 posts
Peasant

I'm going to say that I have evidence that God doesn't exist, but I'm not going to show you. You can't disprove my statement making it 100% true!


They don't claim they have evidence, not usually. They claim they have faith, or know it in their heart. So what would make more sense is if you said "I know in my heart God does not exist."

One thing pointed out was that god's existence is a very ambiguous with different meanings to many different people. In the face of a lack of positive evidence, isn't this evidence that any claim of god is made up, thus evidence of absence?


Not necessarily, because a lot of the different meanings are not presented as factual, but rather as interpretations. So what happens is you have a group of people who hold strong faith in the Christian God, and another group of people who interpret God as more forgiving, or less forgiving, or not all knowing.

And so, you get beck to the question of proving or disproving God with factual evidence, which can't be done.

In other words it's as good as saying God isn't possible to exist.


Isn't God living outside reality kind of the point? Because I seriously doubt he's a big man in the sky. He could just be a being that moves across multiple realities, or Is (because exist wouldn't really work here) outside reality itself.

i meen come on stop changing it!! it sais that god created man, if god created everything to let it evolve from a starting point, he is saying man have not evolved ever, which is false.


That's similar to the different interpretations of dogma. And pointing out holes in dogma does not disprove God, merely the common sense of those who wrote it.

also i saw the bible the other day saying 'new and improved version'


Really? Does it not make more sense for God to update it to more meet the times?
Showing 91-105 of 192