Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
The same is true for god.

The default rational stance on god is, I dont know.
There is no evidence, so therefore I cant believe it.
This does not mean its impossible.
But it IS irrational to believe in a god without evidence.
More...

I would change your last sentence because, as we all know, one man's evidence is another man's supposition. I could say that the universe itself is evidence of a God and then you could tell me that it is not.

If I hold a gun with your fingerprints on it and the bullet that killed Mrs. Smith came from that gun, is that evidence that you pulled the trigger?

Can you give me one example of anything in this universe, based on irrefutable "evidence," that is truth?

Thus, if it is irrational to believe in a god without evidence, does it hold that it is rational to believe in a god with evidence? If that is true, then we must define precisely what we mean by "evidence." Like I said in the very beginning, evidence is a very vauge term -- ask any good lawyer.
 
You relalize, that since you have decided not back up
your assertions that you have conceded this debate.

I accept :D



Your arguement basically boils down to:

I know there is a creator.
I have no way of proving this to you, but I just KNOW.
We will know who is right after were dead.


Your position is irrational and you have no
way of defending it. You must also accept the fact
that no rational person should accept your claim.
You can not expect them to without proper evidence.

Also....
I do not think, or assume, you have a need to prove your
beliefs to me. I simply observed an illogical arguement
and pointed out the errors so that others are not mislead.

I believe critical thinking skills would greatly improve
our society. I enjoy showing ( at least I attempt to)
proper critical review of statements made by others
ESPECIALLY when they are making grand claims.

Most importantly, its always OK to admit that you dont know.

peace

axeman - born an atheist, and STILL an athiest :D




Originally posted by aphexcoil
axeman,

This is exactly why, for me, debating the presence and existence of a god is a waste of time. I know that a creator exists due to the experiences in *my* life than have led me to that conclusion.

furthermore, you obviously refute this due to the experiences within *your* life.

Who is right and who is wrong is of no concern to me, since my beliefs suit me as well as your beliefs suit you.

This is the nature of life and this is why it is good to be an individual and free-thinker.

To debate with you on this subject would suggest that I have some need to prove my beliefs to you, but that would merely be an attempt to assert all of my cumulative life experiences overtop yours and forcing you to see something in a light that you, from your present position, are incapable of seeing.

That is not meant as an insult. I am incapable of seeing your viewpoint from my present position.

However, in 100 years, we will both be dead, and any words we exchange on this matter will have no influence or bearing on the "real truth" to existence.

If you are right, lights out -- it was great while it lasted.

If I am right, I'll see you on the flip-side.
More...
 
axeman,

if you were to debate my opinion, what would you say?

if i admit i do not know for sure, but i believe death is the same thing as before birth. what would you say?

just for the record, i will explain my reasoning:

-to me, being alive is my brain being active. who i am is my brain. not my heart, not my "soul."

-i say my life began at the point my brain was turned on. i believe my life will end when my brain is turned off.

-when i think of my life before i was alive (say 1,000 years ago), i can't think of anything. at this time, before birth, my brain was not active.

-when my brain becomes inactive again when i die, why would i believe anything other than it being the same as before birth?

please keep in mind i ALWAYS admit i do not know for sure.
 
No surf.
No offense, but I think you are simply ignorant of
the definition of atheism.

I am a weak atheist.

This mean that I dont know if god exists, and by default
do not believe in god.

This is a rational position.

An agnostic is someone who doesnt know if god exists,
AND has no clue wether or not he believes in god.

That is a less rational position in my opinion.
I think a rational person does NOT believe be DEFAULT.
A person who doesnt even know what HE/SHE
believes in, is in a state of confusion.

A very subtle but important difference.

A strong atheist, on the other hand, ASSERTS that god
does not exist. This CAN be an irrational position,
but not always. (I have met atheists who are strong
atheists for the wrong reasons. They are being
irrational as well, since they did not come to their
conclusion correctly.)

For example.... Im a weak atheist by definition.
But if someone specifically gives me a god to
argue against, I may switch to the STRONG atheist position
and assert that so and so god doesnt exist because
of a logical error in the definition.



peace

axeman


Originally posted by marketsurfer
axe,

thanks for the answer. i agree 100%. saying "i don't know" is rational. being an AGNOSTIC is rational. being an ATHEIST is not.


peace

:cool:
More...
 
I think you have a rational and strong position.


peace

axeman




Originally posted by Gordon Gekko
axeman,

if you were to debate my opinion, what would you say?

if i admit i do not know for sure, but i believe death is the same thing as before birth. what would you say?

just for the record, i will explain my reasoning:

-to me, being alive is my brain being active. who i am is my brain. not my heart, not my "soul."

-i say my life began at the point my brain was turned on. i believe my life will end when my brain is turned off.

-when i think of my life before i was alive (say 1,000 years ago), i can't think of anything. at this time, before birth, my brain was not active.

-when my brain becomes inactive again when i die, why would i believe anything other than it being the same as before birth?

please keep in mind i ALWAYS admit i do not know for sure.
More...
 
Originally posted by aphexcoil


I would change your last sentence because, as we all know, one man's evidence is another man's supposition. I could say that the universe itself is evidence of a God and then you could tell me that it is not.


That is like saying:
I saw a bird lay an egg yesterday.
The egg was a sphere.
Therefore, the earth was created by a VERY large
bird laying a blue egg.

Its a non-sequitur.
The earth no more implies a giant earth creating bird
than the universe implies a god.

Do you have a video tape of god creating the universe?
Can you get god to take credit for said creation?
Can you even SHOW me god so that I know an entity
named god exists which is even capable of creating the universe?

No. No. No.


If I hold a gun with your fingerprints on it and the bullet that killed Mrs. Smith came from that gun, is that evidence that you pulled the trigger?


Possibly. This is not conclusive though.
But its an interesting point. You would have to collect
a TON of evidence to convict someone on a murder case.
Yet, you want to simply point at existence and
give credit to a mythical god which you cant even show us?

Your claim is GRANDER than the murder claim, which has at
least SOME evidence, though maybe not enough.

See the problem here?


Can you give me one example of anything in this universe, based on irrefutable "evidence," that is truth?


Truth - the non-contradiction of reality.
Ok...here's one example.: YOU!
People see you, touch you, hear you every day.
Even people on this board, communicate with you every day.
You may just be a simulated person, but that doesnt matter.
You exist in some form or another.


Thus, if it is irrational to believe in a god without evidence, does it hold that it is rational to believe in a god with evidence? If that is true, then we must define precisely what we mean by "evidence." Like I said in the very beginning, evidence is a very vauge term -- ask any good lawyer.


Lawyers TRY to make it vague for a reason. The same
reason you are attempting to muddy the waters with
semantics. But it doesnt work.

Evidence is basically anything which helps us draw a conclusion.
You have not provided any of this.


peace

axeman
More...
 
WOW! After this thread, Im officially a SENIOR
member of ET! What a hoot! :D

I think its time for daniel to take over.
Im growing weary of these weak arguements.


TAG! Your turn daniel !!! :D


peace

axeman
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top