Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[ad infinitum]

When i voted on this poll, without looking at the results first, i voted yes which made the votes a precise 50/50 split at 249 / 249 (i think that was the figure, at least).

Now we can argue all day about which side has the most logical root but the fact of the matter is that no matter how hard we argue there will be no winner.

there are ignorant people on either side and more informed people on either side.

Now, you can take any number of modes of thinking if you want to be philosophical about it: absurdist, existential, nihilistic, whatever. Or you could be scientific/ mathematical. each has major holes in it because

We are human.

The point is that in the end any argument will have a counter-argument because not only are the premises are poorly constructed but so too are those who argue them.

it is possible to argue for/ against any number of fallacies in a convincing fashion, to us at least.

this isn't maths or english. the nature of the question is too broad to be put under a microscope and too ill-defined to be seen in the stars.

"Does god exist?" is a poor question if you ask me.

1. the definition of "God" is highly subjective.
2. the word "does" suggests tense. are we including time into this argument?
3. "exist" has not been defined. exist at this point in time? in this universe? in my mind? as what?

Does everyone here understand the actual question being asked with those three words alone?

Hahaha what an idiotic thing to write.

 

[boxhunter91]

Im Roman Catholic but I don't believe in god or religion for that matter.
i don't consider myself atheist though due to my heritage.
i dont believe in a spirit or whatever that created earth.
It is just who i am.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
This is mine.

 

[Artist]

Hahaha what an idiotic thing to write.

No, u.

My favourite part of your logical and well argued comment was that you didn't make one.

what would be interesting is seeing how you'd go about justifying yourself.

good luck trying to refute the statement that "god cannot be disproven or proven" mate.

 

[ad infinitum]

No, u.

My favourite part of your logical and well argued comment was that you didn't make one.

what would be interesting is seeing how you'd go about justifying yourself.

good luck trying to refute the statement that "god cannot be disproven or proven" mate.

Athiesm doesn't rely on 'God being disproven'. Zeus was never 'disproven', he still to this day hasn't been 'disproven'. There are simply no good reasons to suggests that he exists. Keep your silly, ill read opinions constipated in the bowel that is your mind.

 

[jmakowiak]

I love asking christians at my school why they beleive in god. It's quite a toughie to answer on the spot

 

[SylviaB]

good luck trying to refute the statement that "god cannot be disproven or proven" mate.

Unicorns cannot be proven or disproven.

Belief in unicorns is therefore a sensible belief

 

[Artist]

Athiesm doesn't rely on 'God being disproven'. Zeus was never 'disproven', he still to this day hasn't been 'disproven'. There are simply no good reasons to suggests that he exists. Keep your silly, ill read opinions constipated in the bowel that is your mind.

What a joke

you attack with something i never associated myself with or even brought up before simply insulting me? good work.

i made a statement about "proof and disproof" in general. i never once said "atheism relies on the disproof of god". i said it was 'silly' to try to either prove or disprove. in fact -MY- statement had no tone WHATSOEVER which promoted the notion that i was an atheist or a theist or even sought to "discredit" atheism at ALL. i ticked a box for the sake of ticking a box. that's it.

You immediately defend atheism, assuming that 'the opinions constipated in the bowel that is my mind' are turned on it. did i even use the word atheism?

seriously...If you aren't addressing the idea of the proof or disproof of god in this thread then you're a troll. its a thread about the existence of god, you tool.

Now, if you want to take the argument in THAT direction: Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of a god. "A - Theism"; theism is the beliefe in a god, A - theism is the rejection of one. an "atheist" who has not conceived or argued over the origins of his existence is not, by any definition, an atheist. If you were to argue over the question and find result in "there is no god" then you would be relying on 'disproving a god' OR simply saying that you'd rather assume he/she/it doesnt.

that is the ONLY real difference between agnosticism and atheism. you are prepared to assume there is no point addressing the very question we're here to ask which fits the mindset you've displayed so far perfectly. at least you're consistent.

NOTHING that you've argued with so far has been justified; merely constructed of a pile of assumptions twisted into insults. it's people like you who make me sick to my "constipated bowel" when i even consider the idea of atheism. you don't know how to argue. you don't know how to think rationally and so you're no better than the pitiful mental image you've concocted of the 'ill-read' evangelists which you so despise. you assume god's non-existence without question or rational evidence in the EXACT same way theists are encouraged to do the opposite.

as for this:

Unicorns cannot be proven or disproven.

Belief in unicorns is therefore a sensible belief

sensible belief? way to read.

i discouraged the argument of a god based on the inability to prove or disprove. if you want, i'll say the same thing about unicorns.

 

[moll.]

If God was real I would have a beard.
I don't have a beard.
Ergo God is not real.

 

[ad infinitum]

What a joke

you attack with something i never associated myself with or even brought up before simply insulting me? good work.

I attacked what you wrote. Your mind numbing babble. Your intellectually bankrupt agnosticism.

i made a statement about "proof and disproof" in general. i never once said "atheism relies on the disproof of god".

Not overtly (in your first post at least). But in this second post you proclaim this exactly. Please refrain from making such a fool of your self.

i said it was 'silly' to try to either prove or disprove.
in fact -MY- statement had no tone WHATSOEVER which promoted the notion that i was an atheist or a theist or even sought to "discredit" atheism at ALL. i ticked a box for the sake of ticking a box. that's it.

I'm pretty sure my retort destroyed tis silly little word game of yours:

Athiesm doesn't rely on 'God being disproven'. Zeus was never 'disproven', he still to this day hasn't been 'disproven'. There are simply no good reasons to suggests that he exists

You immediately defend atheism, assuming that 'the opinions constipated in the bowel that is my mind' are turned on it. did i even use the word atheism?

You made a very silly point about proof and disproof. I, being intellectually superior, corrected you.

seriously...If you aren't addressing the idea of the proof or disproof of god in this thread then you're a troll. its a thread about the existence of god, you tool.

What I wrote addresses the point....You're quite slow to this whole reading/ thinking thing aren't you...

Athiesm doesn't rely on 'God being disproven'. Zeus was never 'disproven', he still to this day hasn't been 'disproven'. There are simply no good reasons to suggests that he exists

Now, if you want to take the argument in THAT direction: Atheism, by definition, is the rejection of a god. "A - Theism"; theism is the beliefe in a god, A - theism is the rejection of one.

Atheism is defined as the absence of theism. You are an Atheist in regards to Islam. You are an Atheist in regards to Zeus.

an "atheist" who has not conceived or argued over the origins of his existence is not, by any definition, an atheist.

Using my definition (which is the correct one) they actually are in some sense. Indeed, Theism is a positive truth claim, and 'Atheism' is a negative truth claim, so the above statement of yours does hold some truth.

If you were to argue over the question and find result in "there is no god" then you would be relying on 'disproving a god' OR simply saying that you'd rather assume he/she/it doesnt.

Not at all. This is a complete failure of logic. A truly pathetic attempt by your feeble mind to draw a conclusion. Again you are an 'Athiest' in regard to invisible Unicorns yet you have not 'disproved unicorns' or 'just assumed disproof'. You are not persuaded by the claims of those claim existance of unicorns because their evidence is terrible and/or non existant.

that is the ONLY real difference between agnosticism and atheism. you are prepared to assume there is no point addressing the very question we're here to ask which fits the mindset you've displayed so far perfectly. at least you're consistent.

Incohorent babble. Agnosticism has no intellectual basis. It is simply someone who hasn't made up their mind. It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not. You either believe Jesus rose from the dead or you do not. You either believe Muhhamad spoke to the angel Gabriel or you do not.

NOTHING that you've argued with so far has been justified; merely constructed of a pile of assumptions twisted into insults. it's people like you who make me sick to my "constipated bowel" when i even consider the idea of atheism. you don't know how to argue. you don't know how to think rationally and so you're no better than the pitiful mental image you've concocted of the 'ill-read' evangelists which you so despise. you assume god's non-existence without question or rational evidence in the EXACT same way theists are encouraged to do the opposite.

You made a silly point and I destroyed it. No need to cry.

as for this:

sensible belief? way to read.

i discouraged the argument of a god based on the inability to prove or disprove. if you want, i'll say the same thing about unicorns.

You here have implied that it is EQUALLY sensible to either believe in unicorns or not believe in unicorns. The Reductio ad absurdum of your entire, tediously weary and patently failed arguements.

 

[Unsatisfied]

how is agnosticism a silly position? i can be agnostic in the sense that i simply accept theres a possibility of god existing

when democritus proposed the idea of the atom in 400bc it was rejected by aristotle and pretty much everybody else in his time, there was no way to prove nor disprove the existence of an atom conclusively back then, so does that mean believing in the atom was no more absurd than to believe in unicorns or zeus?

 

[pinkyforce7]

ad infinitum

you have got to be joking? troll much?

everything that Artist said was correct. your intelligence is not superior - your childlike attacks are evidence of this. Artist's supposed incoherent babble is far more logical and correct than your flawed attempts to tear his argument apart.


"It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not."

to say that you have to definitively believe that one of many possibilities is correct is fundamentally flawed nonsense. having a definite belief in a certain outcome is the cause for bias in today's scientific method. the least biased way to approach finding the truth is to approach everything from a neutral view point. The only truth that is ABSOLUTE is that which can be proved using scientific method, and then tested again with the same method without fail. no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a god using scientific method, just as to this day, no one can prove the existence or non-existence of theories that disprove the existence of god (e.g. evolution and the big bang theory). It seems that as there is no conclusive evidence for either, that is a very logical standing to have agnostic beliefs.

as for your point about being little of no evidence of the existence of a "unicorn", I would like to point out that there is possible evidence for the existence of a theistic god, such as miracles, visions, and spiritual encounters that many people around the world experience every day. You could argue that all these instances are in fact just coincidences and the product of the human subjective mind. but in the same token, you could argue that the evidence posed for evolution theory is all coincidence as well.

for myself, there seems to be no definite evidence for either theism or atheism as either could exist. logically, I choose an agnostic outlook which is neutral to the existence of either. lets be logical about this and make up our minds on things based on truth which can be PROVEN, not assumptions which can easily be disproven. surely everyone can have thier own subjective opinion which they personally think is true, but objectively agnosticism is the only truley correct outlook. based on objectivity, my subjective opinion is that either could be correct and therefore agnosticism makes sense to me.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

ad infinitum

you have got to be joking? troll much?

everything that Artist said was correct. your intelligence is not superior - your childlike attacks are evidence of this. Artist's supposed incoherent babble is far more logical and correct than your flawed attempts to tear his argument apart.


"It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not."

to say that you have to definitively believe that one of many possibilities is correct is fundamentally flawed nonsense. having a definite belief in a certain outcome is the cause for bias in today's scientific method. the least biased way to approach finding the truth is to approach everything from a neutral view point. The only truth that is ABSOLUTE is that which can be proved using scientific method, and then tested again with the same method without fail. no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a god using scientific method, just as to this day, no one can prove the existence or non-existence of theories that disprove the existence of god (e.g. evolution and the big bang theory). It seems that as there is no conclusive evidence for either, that is a very logical standing to have agnostic beliefs.

as for your point about being little of no evidence of the existence of a "unicorn", I would like to point out that there is possible evidence for the existence of a theistic god, such as miracles, visions, and spiritual encounters that many people around the world experience every day. You could argue that all these instances are in fact just coincidences and the product of the human subjective mind. but in the same token, you could argue that the evidence posed for evolution theory is all coincidence as well.

for myself, there seems to be no definite evidence for either theism or atheism as either could exist. logically, I choose an agnostic outlook which is neutral to the existence of either. lets be logical about this and make up our minds on things based on truth which can be PROVEN, not assumptions which can easily be disproven. surely everyone can have thier own subjective opinion which they personally think is true, but objectively agnosticism is the only truley correct outlook. based on objectivity, my subjective opinion is that either could be correct and therefore agnosticism makes sense to me.

what is this incoherent tenth-rate emotional babble..?
A system of statements is considered 'scientific' or 'empirical' if they are falsifiable, propositions that fail this test are discarded into a soiled mess called 'metaphysics'.
No theory is ever absolutely proven, and their is no such thing a 'definite evidence', this DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT have anything to do with the 'validity' or 'truth' of such theorems.
There is an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability, it is the falsifiability of a system that is to be taken as the criterion of demarcation (i.e draws the line between scientific language and white-noise metaphysics)

Apologize immediately for your disgusting attempt at making an intellectual statement, I literally 'laughed out loud' at your use of words like 'logic', 'objectivity', 'truly correct', really pathetic stuff.

Some people just aren't meant to think on high levels, they mash wish-wash words into their sentences, producing paragraphs of inarticulate and meaningless noise. You have clearly demonstrated (through the above comments) your membership (if not presidency) of such a group, so I better do your thinking for you.

Now you are either persuaded by the argument for theism, or you are not, if you are not, you are an atheist, atheism is a default position, it does not require verification, and associates itself with statements that are indeed falsifiable.

 

[ad infinitum]

ad infinitum

you have got to be joking? troll much?

everything that Artist said was correct. your intelligence is not superior - your childlike attacks are evidence of this. Artist's supposed incoherent babble is far more logical and correct than your flawed attempts to tear his argument apart.


"It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not."

to say that you have to definitively believe that one of many possibilities is correct is fundamentally flawed nonsense. having a definite belief in a certain outcome is the cause for bias in today's scientific method. the least biased way to approach finding the truth is to approach everything from a neutral view point. The only truth that is ABSOLUTE is that which can be proved using scientific method, and then tested again with the same method without fail. no one can prove the existence or non-existence of a god using scientific method, just as to this day, no one can prove the existence or non-existence of theories that disprove the existence of god (e.g. evolution and the big bang theory). It seems that as there is no conclusive evidence for either, that is a very logical standing to have agnostic beliefs.

as for your point about being little of no evidence of the existence of a "unicorn", I would like to point out that there is possible evidence for the existence of a theistic god, such as miracles, visions, and spiritual encounters that many people around the world experience every day. You could argue that all these instances are in fact just coincidences and the product of the human subjective mind. but in the same token, you could argue that the evidence posed for evolution theory is all coincidence as well.

for myself, there seems to be no definite evidence for either theism or atheism as either could exist. logically, I choose an agnostic outlook which is neutral to the existence of either. lets be logical about this and make up our minds on things based on truth which can be PROVEN, not assumptions which can easily be disproven. surely everyone can have thier own subjective opinion which they personally think is true, but objectively agnosticism is the only truley correct outlook. based on objectivity, my subjective opinion is that either could be correct and therefore agnosticism makes sense to me.

Not worth commenting on such ill-read nonsense. Use the toilet next time you need to dispel your bowel.

 

[KFunk]

Please note that the above trolls exist in order to disarm intelligent discussion on BoS and so are not worth responding to.

Sincerely,
KFunk

 

[tommykins]

I'm finding these 'THIS DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS KUZ U CNT PROVE EITHER WAY' posts annoying.
It doesn't matter if you can't prove either way, it's about seeing/hearing/listening to new points and educating yourself.

 

[ad infinitum]

Please note that the above trolls exist in order to disarm intelligent discussion on BoS and so are not worth responding to.

Sincerely,
KFunk

Please note that the above poster exists because he has paid a hefty amounts of money in order to have hack 'philosophy' teachers to tell him what to think. He is not worth responding to, unless the opportunity arises to take money from him (this is very easy).

 

[Marin3 Muscl3]

If the question 'Does God exist' was able to be answered simply, then hundreds of years ago people would have been believing in the same god. It's not something that can be answered with ease.

Everyone that does believe in god, believes with blind faith. Meaning, we weren't around at the time of revelation of either religions so our viewpoints differ. We believe what we were taught or what we have researched ourselves.

Believe in your religon but don't;

-go knocking on peoples houses trying to sell them bibles,

-stand in main intersections crying with a picture of jesus next to you

-and the main point, definitely do not go bombing people. Learn your religion first.

 

[moll.]

Please note that the above trolls exist in order to disarm intelligent discussion on BoS and so are not worth responding to.

Sincerely,
KFunk

Hi KFunk!
Long time no read.
How's being all smart and shit working out for you these days?

EDIT: Honestly not being sarcastic or anything, even though it does kinda read that way.

 

[moll.]

If the question 'Does God exist' was able to be answered simply, then hundreds of years ago people would have been believing in the same god. It's not something that can be answered with ease.

Everyone that does believe in god, believes with blind faith. Meaning, we weren't around at the time of revelation of either religions so our viewpoints differ. We believe what we were taught or what we have researched ourselves.

Believe in your religon but don't;

-go knocking on peoples houses trying to sell them bibles,

-stand in main intersections crying with a picture of jesus next to you

-and the main point, definitely do not go bombing people. Learn your religion first.

Ok CounterStrike dude. Just cos you asked nicely.
Unlike the previous 5365874384 post in this thread, similar to your own.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Incohorent babble. Agnosticism has no intellectual basis. It is simply someone who hasn't made up their mind. It is not a tennable or coherent position. You are either a Theist or your are not. You either believe Jesus rose from the dead or you do not. You either believe Muhhamad spoke to the angel Gabriel or you do not.


You made a silly point and I destroyed it. No need to cry.

Some wild assumptions here.

A/gnosticism, whilst often used completely out of context, does have an intellectual basis in describing your epistemic stance in reply to a proposition. It need not have a purely religious basis (I could be agnostic about the existence of "true love"), whereas "atheism" as a label is contingent to the religious argument.

Let me explain: If the "god" proposition had never been posited, it would not make sense (nor be possible) to be an atheist- "I don't believe in your god" is nonsensical. Atheism exists only in response to theism.

Having said that, you can extend the broad premise of weak atheism to other areas and simply call it skepticism. This is generally the position that defines most modern "atheists" (though I'm careful to make many generalisations). The general position would be:

Let god be X:

I'm not satisfied that you have produced any credible evidence to support the existence of entity X, hence until such suffices, I will reject your claim and stay neutral to its existence. This involves by necessity not adapting a "belief" here.

This is a logical position, yet it can be taken to extreme cases where you would assert that entity X does not exist through a variety of proofs (rational or empirical) [strong atheism]. This position, like theism is not considered viable (as of yet), but may be considered more probable then its counterpart (theism) among many. However, such inductive logic can have dangers as Hume reminds us in a A Treatise Of Human Nature, in regards to certainty concerning the rising of the morning sun. Whilst such a belief may be pragmatic, we must accept that engaging in inductive generalisation requires we hold an indispensable belief which itself, must remain in an important way ungrounded.

Now returning to agnosticism (a stance on what we can know), a weak atheist can well be an agnostic yet not the later. Agnosticism is a highly credible position if you reach the conclusion that given all form of logic we know, I'm unsatisfied that a final "proof" will be reached in either direction. I will be silent on final certainty, but within the realm of logic/reasoning I am still justfied in being skeptical over some propositions to the other.

Being a theistic agnostic is equally possible (but we would need to delve into degrees of "theism", much like the weak/strong atheistic split).

From the positions given, you sound like a gnostic strong atheist.