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.
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.
That's sort of the point in the thought experiment. Since each group has their own claim regardless of whether it be metaphorical or factual, we are still ending up with many different claims of god from many different people. So without providing something to conclusively back up that claim we can then regard all claims as false. The problem I see with my own views with this line of thought is that it can eliminate any god but not every god, as it only covers existing concepts of god.
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.
If god is outside reality that by definition would make god not real.
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.
It does disprove that particular claim of god.
Really? Does it not make more sense for God to update it to more meet the times?
But it's not God doing the updating is it? Also if God is suppose to be perfect I wouldn't expect his book to require revision and improvement.
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?
Personally I think there aren't two people here on earth who share the same belief, strictly speaking. Everyone has an own personal concept of god and an own personal opinion on every point. A group of people can agree on most of the points but there will always be divergences between individuals, as small as they may be. This would basically say that there are as many religions as there are religious people; and each one of them, following your thoughts, could be evidence of absence in the absence of evidence. For that specific god indeed, but as you said yourself, it isn't evidence of absence of any deity in general. But that's just as good since as soon as someone comes up with a religion it is automatically refuted^^
Really? Does it not make more sense for God to update it to more meet the times?
Well, god himself probably did nothing since the bible is meant to be the words of god, but not the writings of god; he didn't write the bible himself. Why should he edit it, and by that make a grave intrusion in our mortal life?^^
That's sort of the point in the thought experiment. Since each group has their own claim regardless of whether it be metaphorical or factual, we are still ending up with many different claims of god from many different people. So without providing something to conclusively back up that claim we can then regard all claims as false. The problem I see with my own views with this line of thought is that it can eliminate any god but not every god, as it only covers existing concepts of god.
Maybe I'm reading something wrong, but I don't see how disproving one claim proves the others false. If what you're saying is that the fact that there are so many different interpretations of God falsifies all of them, I also don't see how that can be true either.
Looking from a religious standpoint, is it not possible that God only gave his true word to one group? Or to multiple groups and left it open to interpretation?
Belief can't be used as evidence towards or against the existence of God, because belief is dependent on the believe, not the deity.
If god is outside reality that by definition would make god not real.
Definitions get hard at this point, but that would make either a trans-reality being, or the very essence of what is unreal.
It does disprove that particular claim of god.
Again, it only disproves the particular interpretation, which is not dependent on the god, but the believers.
But it's not God doing the updating is it? Also if God is suppose to be perfect I wouldn't expect his book to require revision and improvement.
I doubt it's God updating it. But even in His perfection, believers can't transcend time and culture difference, and so it's necessary to revise it for perfection in relation to the interpretation.
Maybe I'm reading something wrong, but I don't see how disproving one claim proves the others false.
Lets say I have three red balls in my hand and you claim I have two red balls and a blue ball and it's covered in glue. Since I can disprove the claim that I have just two red balls and a blue one this also proves the claim that the blue one is covered in glue to be false.
If what you're saying is that the fact that there are so many different interpretations of God falsifies all of them, I also don't see how that can be true either.
It's like the big fish story. Every time it's told the fish and conditions in which it was caught change. This indicates the story of catching a big fish is one that was just made up. This stance however can be changed by showing the fish that was caught, eliminating all but one of the claims.
Definitions get hard at this point, but that would make either a trans-reality being, or the very essence of what is unreal.
No not really. It wouldn't make god trans-reality as that would still be existing inside reality. The very essence of what is unreal makes no sense and would still be unreal ie fake.
Again, it only disproves the particular interpretation, which is not dependent on the god, but the believers.
Just like the existence of a blue ball requires the claim of being blue. A god who created humans when we know this not to be the case eliminates such a god. Thought it doesn't eliminate a god that had done other things prior. Right now we can pretty well take this to the beginning of the universe with varying degrees of certainty. From that point if we argue god exists in another reality or across realities than we can reason not all of reality requires god, so there is no reason to think ours does. As pointed out already if we are then forced to moved god to the point of being outside of all reality, god literally becomes unreal, thus non existent.
I doubt it's God updating it. But even in His perfection, believers can't transcend time and culture difference, and so it's necessary to revise it for perfection in relation to the interpretation.
I would expect information and laws passed down from a perfect being to be able to transcend time and culture. if it requires revision than it wasn't perfect, thus couldn't have come from a perfect being.
I find these religion topics rather stupid because everyone keeps debating their beliefs and usually trying to make the others believe in what they believe too, everyone has their own opinion and there really isn't any solid proof to any of these gods existing so everyone has to just believe what they want no matter what the others say.
I find these religion topics rather stupid because everyone keeps debating their beliefs and usually trying to make the others believe in what they believe too, everyone has their own opinion and there really isn't any solid proof to any of these gods existing so everyone has to just believe what they want no matter what the others say.
Not all beliefs are equal and right now I'm not exactly debating my beliefs. I'm simply exercising some concepts.
Look guys, let's not turn this into Christianity FTW. I don't hate you atheists don't get it twisted. I love yall. I would like for you guys to someday accept Jesus as your Lord and savior, but it is your own decision. And no offense, but arguing all this time to disprove what we believe in is pointless if you have no proof, and the same applies to us. So let's not give the maker of this thread the satisfaction of starting a Christian-Atheist war. Let's just call it a truce.
No. You believe - or you don't. You can get converted but you don't sit around thinking "what god will I believe in? Hmm, this has advantages, but the other one seems just nice. Heck, I'll take this one". What I want to say is that even if I'd wanted to believe, I couldn't, because I just don't. It is not in my hands whether I believe or not.
And what some forget, is that it is not even a two way choice. It is not belief or no belief. There is also the question, what belief?
