Proof of God - for or against???

Users who are viewing this thread

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I would put myself under number 6

me too

You can make a totally logically consistent/sound argument for unicorns. It doesn't mean they exist.

You can make a logically valid argument for the existence of unicorns but it would only be sound if the premises are true. Go ahead and try. We'll judge how sound it is by your premises.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 210
    Replies
  • 4K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
4. The only two options are an eternal universe or an eternal Creator

Absolutely wrong. There is the unknown. ;)

Even if there is a creator does not mean we as living creatures have any kind of a personal relationship with it, that it cares about us, and/or it has a hand in a spiritual plane of existence.

Some people enjoy not being sure whether to accept or reject, and find a lot of personal connectivity to middle ground and suspending judgment. Belief is on a continuum, it is not a or b.


*I've always quite liked Dawkins' scale, though I do believe it could go into even greater detail...

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Where are you on this scale? At first clance I'd say I am No.4, however when it comes to a specific God as described by theists (in contrast to a generalized abstract deity), then I would be a No.5. I think the odds of the specific God we have been told about since childhood is highly improbable, but this does not preclude that a deity or a spiritual existence is impossible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think the odds of the specific God we have been told about since childhood is highly improbable, but this does not preclude that a deity or a spiritual existence is possible.

Good point. When I said six I was referring to the gods which have been proposed to me. If someone proposed God as a powerful being in another galaxy then I'd probably say 4.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Good point. When I said six I was referring to the gods which have been proposed to me. If someone proposed God as a powerful being in another galaxy then I'd probably say 4.

I fixed my post to say "impossible" vs "possible". I think we are pretty close in this view. :)
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Where are you on this scale? At first clance I'd say I am No.4, however when it comes to a specific God as described by theists (in contrast to a generalized abstract deity), then I would be a No.5. I think the odds of the specific God we have been told about since childhood is highly improbable, but this does not preclude that a deity or a spiritual existence is impossible.


I'm a 6, thereabouts. Similar to what you said but 5 and 6 instead of 4 and 5.
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
My wife is about a 4 or 5 and a Michigan Wolverines fan...talking about a "House Divided"!!! :D

If I remember right, you wrote in an earlier post Christians go to heaven when they die and everyone else goes to hell. I'm not offended by your belief because you don't consider hell to be a place of torture. But I am curious about something. Most likely your wife doesn't believe in an afterlife. So she isn't going to convert to Christianity in order to be with you for eternity. Are you planning to leave Christianity later in life so you can be with her for eternity? Or is being with the same woman for eternity not something you desire?

I'm kidding about the second question. I haven't grown tired of my wife in 17 years. It keeps getting better. :)
 

Diggin Deep

Active Member
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Because of where I have been and what I have went through in my life to be where I am now, I will never walk away from Christianity again. My wife and I talk a lot about my faith and how she wishes she could share in it right now. We still pray at the dinner table and when we go to bed, and she has no problem with me praying with the kids and taking them to church...so she's not totally opposed to it, just unsure about all of it. The single most thing that caused her to walk away from her Christianity was watching me walk away from God. I struggle with this every day, because I am the person that originally led her to Christ....:(
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
That's the answer I've gotten every time I've asked. I''ll probably never understand how Christians can love someone they've never seen more than the person they married. But it is biblical. Actually it's one of the things Jesus said that I don't believe is right.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
 

itsmeJonB

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,211
Reaction score
34
Tokenz
237.26z
There is zero proof that god ever existed. The bible doesn't count, anyone could write a book.

Unless you were there in the time of jesus, you'd never know the real truth.

Well yeah that makes sense to you and me, but that argument doesn't hold water for a christian
 

itsmeJonB

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,211
Reaction score
34
Tokenz
237.26z
There's books on dragons and unicorns and all kinds of mythical creatures, I guess they would be real too then. The books prove it.

Yeah its called the bible. No, seriously, there are translations that insist unicorns and fire breathing lizards once lived in biblical times. Along with dinosaurs living along humans
 

BornReady

Active Member
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Yeah its called the bible. No, seriously, there are translations that insist unicorns and fire breathing lizards once lived in biblical times. Along with dinosaurs living along humans
The bible speaks of monsters such as leviathan. Some modern readers interpret this as dinosaur. But in reality, I don't think the bible writers had any concept of a dinosaur.
 

FreightTrain

Active Member
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Books don't prove existence. In fact, they NEVER can. Books are written by mortal man and therefore bound to have flaws, opinion, misinformation, and bias. Only you, yourself can prove existence for yourself...but be careful for you, too are mortal man.
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
The only way to cut back (not remove completely) the tangle of inevitable error in observation and decision making is to follow the scientific method.
 

FreightTrain

Active Member
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Yeah, cut back. It's not possible to remove completely because new information constantly trumps previous trains of thought. We no longer believe the Earth is the center of the universe nor that Pluto is still a planet. New evidence comes along and changes what we called fact earlier. Scientists haven't gotten it all figured out, yet they run around much like prophets themselves. Anybody see the irony here??
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Yeah, cut back. It's not possible to remove completely because new information constantly trumps previous trains of thought. We no longer believe the Earth is the center of the universe nor that Pluto is still a planet. New evidence comes along and changes what we called fact earlier. Scientists haven't gotten it all figured out, yet they run around much like prophets themselves. Anybody see the irony here??

You just don't get it, do you?

Science is NEVER set in stone, there is always room for change or reinterpretation of the current theories.
There is no debate on whether Pluto exists or not, just on how they want to classify it based on the latest data collected.

Religion = answer
Science = explanation

Why does the universe exist? Religion would give you the answer, "because God willed it"
Science would try to explain it

How does your car start when you turn the key? Religion has no such answer to this. But science can explain it to you very precisely.

Religion tries to satisfy you with answers to questions, mostly spiritual questions. Science does no such thing, it only explains the physical world around us without trying to placate our needs. It is what it is.

Religion doesn't change it's views as more information is gathered, it is what it is. But science MUST change it's views as more information is gathered and verified. If there was no change, then it wouldn't be science...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FreightTrain

Active Member
Messages
966
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I beg to differ, comrade.

More like, Religion = Question
Science = We've found the answer!

Except the latter is always changing its answer.
 

Panacea

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,445
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
Yeah, cut back. It's not possible to remove completely because new information constantly trumps previous trains of thought. We no longer believe the Earth is the center of the universe nor that Pluto is still a planet. New evidence comes along and changes what we called fact earlier. Scientists haven't gotten it all figured out, yet they run around much like prophets themselves. Anybody see the irony here??

I've seen you mention an appreciation of logic. With that in mind, is your bolded argument logical? Scientists (implying how many of them?) run around like prophets (in what way)?

When a legitimate scientist (more like team, association, community of scientists- which is key in itself) makes a prediction, it is based on a sturdy formula that has proven effective over time. It is tested, retested, criticized by others in the community, edited, and this process takes many years. Prophets have historically used mystical or unreliable methods of prediction, so in the most fundamental way, a legitimate scientist cannot emulate a prophet.

I would argue, that real scientists, not just those who support science half-heartedly as a means of knowing more than the religious, take pride in knowing their findings are fallible and falsifiable. Else why would they continue to research, and hold themselves up to scrutiny from peers? Pop science is overall not very respectable, but real science holds our best shot at knowing things about the universe.
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top