How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Deleted member]

You would be wasting your breath. I'm glad you realize that. Your personal experiences mean nothing here; nor do the lack thereof from the atheists. In my opinion, you have to earn the right to be an atheist. From a very rough judgment call, I doubt anyone in this debate hall has experienced enough suffering to truly not believe in a God.

I could be extremely wrong.

Your experiences are great for yourself, and I'm sincerely happy for you that you have had experiences that prove for yourself the existence of God. However, people in this thread will not take it as evidence just as I would not, because they have not happened to me. Think of what you are proposing - we have never met you, I doubt we ever will. If we were really to hear out your experiences, what good is that when we really have no emotional connection? It just doesn't work.

You're wasting your breath until you can return with either a different strategy or factual evidence. Good luck.

GhostAnime, it pains me to admit it but you're actually proving his point. His experiences are NOT silly and in my opinion they are probably the only thing we have. So shut the hell up. These are people's lives we are talking about. Calling them silly is just plain ridiculous.

 

[GhostAnime]

i'm not talking about the actual *happening*; i'm talking about whatever that links it to his god.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

God provided a way out of hell and doom, his name is jesus. He even warns us well in advance of hell and tells how how to avoid it. That is as pure as love can get. Honestly, how can you not know this? Hell is a needed so we don't have people like hitler in heaven.

God could just not create Hitlers in the first place. But that's beside the point; that has nothing to do with showing God exists, that is debating the self-consistency of Christianity. Of course self-consistency is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

I'm still waiting for your burden of proof too. Seriously. Must christians be attacked and targeted here? Do we have a sign on our forehead that says ignore everything I say and tell me to prove it?

I'm not sure you understand what "burden of proof" means. It means that whoever makes a claim is responsible for providing the evidence/proof. Theists CLAIM that God exists, therefore they have a burden of proof. Skeptics do not claim anything, they simply question the theistic claim, and so don't have a burden of proof of anything other than showing that theist arguments are invalid, which is the point of this topic.

I have plenty of experiences I would share. The thing is, you wouldn't believe them! So why waste my time? My experiences still have no burden of proof in your eyes because you won't take anything I say as truth! What a great way to debate!

We have been over this point several times. A personal experience is not a valid form of evidence. That's why scientists measure things with machines and not their own senses. If we are allowed to take personal experiences as evidence, you have no right to claim your experience was any more valid than those of Muslims or Hindus or Scientologists, or any other that is mutually contradictory to yours. Point being, allowing personal experience as a form of gathering knowledge about the world leads to contradictions almost immediately, therefore an outside observer must reject it as empirical evidence. Snex made many posts about this point in dialogue with "tissue" 2 or 3 pages before your first post, I think it would be instructive for you to read them.

It's hard to calm down when everyone else doesn't have to prove everything they use as a counter argument. Having it only apply to the christian in this thread is unfair and gives the christian no room for debate. Which is why I view it as an attack because the christian is simply being cornered.

Atheists do not make any claims about God, because atheism is a non-position. A theist does make claims. Therefore the theist has the burden of proof, and an atheist's job is to point out flaws in the theists reasoning, which is what we are doing here.

Delorted:

What can one the amount of personal suffering one has experienced possibly have to do with the right to their non-belief in a God?

 

[Deleted member]

Non belief or disbelief? You guys claim to be "atheists" but I don't see it as such.

 

[GhostAnime]

well if they don't take a position, it's technically disbelief which fits into atheism perfectly.

 

[blazedaces]

Firstly, Cubemario: Well, enough people have argued against your other points. There were in my opinion a few missed ones, but that is beside the point. The more important one is helping you to understand why anecdotal evidence is not acceptable. Go to the thread concerning logical fallacies. Anecdotal evidence should be there if not look it up. Hyuga has outlined the case fairly well, but perhaps a non-biased source online may sway you more proficiently?

Now, delorted: I really don't like your double standards. I respect the fact that amongst many in this debate hall against Cubemario, you would show him kindness, but I don't believe you would ever do so for an atheist. You also, make the following statement: "From a very rough judgment call, I doubt anyone in this debate hall has experienced enough suffering to truly not believe in a God.

I could be extremely wrong. "

For some reason you have a double standard here, clearly assuming that the experiences of those who believe in god holds more weight than those who don't or is more likely to be a worthwhile experience.

Regardless, as hyuga pointed out, what does that have to do with belief in god? If anecdotal evidence is certainly not acceptable as an argument for god... why should we look to our experiences only to confirm our beliefs? Seriously. And why should suffering be the only reason to not believe in God? I think in your eyes the only way one would stop believing in God is if he suffered so much he did not understand God's ways. What about all the other reasons people have given?

And now I believe you're about to start one of your routines of pointing fingers and name-calling by telling people what they should and shouldn't label themselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate.

-blazed

 

[snex]

since everybody has already beaten me to the punch on every other point, ill just address this one thing...

But you can't honestly believe that 100% of all scientists should be questioned.

YES YES YES YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT! THAT IS WHAT SCIENCE IS!

when a scientist publishes a result that doesnt fit what we already know, TONS of other scientists scramble for the chance to prove him wrong. they ALL question the result. when einstein published his theory of general relativity, scientists immediately tried to test it by checking whether or not starlight would bend around a solar eclipse. when hubble published that galaxies were all moving away from us at immense speeds, scientists immediately signed up for telescope time to check it. when darwin published "the origin" scientists immediately started digging for transitional fossils.

this is what separates science from religion. when somebody claims something in science, they publish their METHODS and ASSUMPTIONS so that everybody can see HOW they got the result, and if they wanted to, they could do the experiment THEMSELVES. when somebody claims something in religion, there is simply no such transparency. fellow religionists just BELIEVE because they WANT to. this is intellectually dishonest and it disgusts me, and it should disgust all of you. the next time your pastor says he knows something, you need to ask him "HOW do you know that? show me how you attain the knowledge so i can get it for myself without needing a middleman." if you asked a scientist this, he would probably be happy to show you, but if you asked a pastor, he would probably want to kick you out.

whatever cubemario experienced, it is NOT proof of the bible. it simply couldnt be. you cant prove the truth of ancient books by having an emotional experience. the only way you can prove the truth of ancient books is by digging up ancient rocks and seeing if the claims match REALITY, not your EMOTIONS.

 

[Cubemario]

By burden of proof, I was talking about big bang, evolution etc. which many people in this topic support and have mentioned in the past. Though i'm aware there's another topic for that.

Ultimately god didn't make hitler who he was. The people around him and the choices that he made are what made hitler. For some reason a lot of people think that because god would give someone free will, that he is somehow responsible for their actions. The bible explains it all well. It basically all comes down to satan, jesus and what christians call 'the fall of man'. Though I know that nobody would take my explanation seriously, because it's written in the bible.

Truth is? I really can't prove to you God exists by the standard that everyone is looking for here. If you throw out the bible as a way to explain something, it starts to become impossible. There are certainly some scientific points I could bring up, but I can't say it with any real confidence since i'm not a scientist. Besides many people have different views on science and theories, so if what I say doesn't jive with your belief in something, it's useless to you.

I can however debate when someone brings god's character into question. I also would like to explain the christian side more. this part isn't so much a debate as it is an explanation.

God is really hard to explain through something like science. He is a supernatural being after all. He can really only be explained through a personal experience or the bible. Faith is always required first though. I never had blind faith going in, I had experiences that validated the bible and I had faith in those experiences. Then (just as the bible says) I had faith and god revealed himself more to me.

The bible basically says that you must have faith first. This is why it's hard for many to believe. They certainly can choose many other religions or go to science and other theories for all the answers. Though it's a fact that believing in scientific theories all requires an extent of faith. You have to believe that the scientists that report their findings to the public are completely honest. You also have to believe that those findings could be incorrect later on. That's a small list, but there are a series of beliefs you need to have. It's easier to believe in science because it isn't personal and asks you give nothing in return.

Don't get me wrong either, I have nothing against science. I'm just simply explaining that you get little proof of god and validity of the bible unless you have faith in it first. Yeah I know that's considered a cop out. Though that's the only explanation that any christian can give. It all comes down to the choice of choosing to believe or not. Choose to believe genuinely? All is made clear. Choose not to? Your left in the dark.

 

[snex]

dont you find it odd that EVERY bull**** belief says you need to have faith FIRST?

psychics, homeopathic "medicines," muslims, loch ness monster... the list goes on and on.

believers in these things ALL say you need faith FIRST. why do you think christianity is the ONE thing among all beliefs like this that is NOT bull****? any belief that demands that you need faith FIRST is ADMITTING that it is bull****!

science doesnt require faith at all. if you dont trust the scientists, do the experiments yourself. the method is available for everybody.

 

[Cubemario]

That method isn't available for everybody. Do you have the equipment, knowledge, time, and money to test every scientific theory? No you don't, so quit being dishonest. There comes a point where you have to choose to believe it's true or not.

 

[snex]

That method isn't available for everybody. Do you have the equipment, knowledge, time, and money to test every scientific theory? No you don't, so quit being dishonest. There comes a point where you have to choose to believe it's true or not.

anybody can sign up for a graduate program at a science department. that you choose not to is nobody's fault but your own. you dont even need advanced equipment to test most of science anyway. people in the 1900s didnt have particle accelerators.

and i notice you failed to address the fact that only bull**** beliefs require you to have faith FIRST. how do you decide which belief that requires your faith first to pick? there are thousands. i would bet you did the exact same thing most other people do - you just picked the one your parents gave you. how convenient. i guess god just favors you by giving you christian parents above the kids he put into hindu families that will no doubt go to hell simply for that reason.

 

[Cubemario]

That graduate program sounds like it involves money. I also seriously doubt ANYONE could get into it. Also, not everyone has time to sign up for a graduate program either. I guess it's the single mothers fault that she can't sign up for a graduate program. Honestly, get real. Not everyone has the life you have.

The thing your saying snex, is that christianity is the same as all religions. Not even close. Jesus' teachings are very unique. More on this taken from a cool website I found...

To ignore glaring differences between religions might seem broad-minded. In reality it is about as conceited and narrow as a person could get. To assert that all religions are essentially the same would be to claim you are smarter than each of the billions of people who see the distinctive features of their religion as critical. You would be asserting that even though you are not an expert in their religion you know they are wrong - you know their religion is really no different.

What does it matter whether it’s Jesus you worship, or some other religion? It’s all religion. That’s equivalent to asking a wife, deeply in love with her husband, ‘What does it matter if it’s you that your husband has sex with, or a prostitute? It’s all sex.’

Now about the hell thing. God doesn't favor anybody. Nearly everyone is allowed to make the decision to be or not to be a christian. Raised with it or not. It's a tired old argument i've heard before. It holds no ground. I've known people who grew up with NO religion and still chose to be christian. I think I heard you were raised catholic, correct? If not, there have been many people who were raised with christianity and rejected it.

Taken from another website...

I know there are many Christians who say that all those who die without faith in Christ will be relegated to spend eternity in Hell - even if they have never heard the gospel. I think scripture suggests otherwise - that we are judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it. This is not any sort of ecumenical theology or "all ways lead to God." Those who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and have refused to believe have rejected Him, and, as such, will fall under the condemnation of God, because they have rejected His provision for our disobedience. Therefore, atheists are still without excuse in rejecting God. Those who perpetrate evil, even without the knowledge of the gospel, will likewise be condemned, since they have violated their God-given conscience. In the same way, those who play the "religion game" of going to church on Sunday, but living apart from a relationship with God, will be condemned.

 

[snex]

this is the debate hall, not "quote other websites without attribution"

i never claimed all religions were exactly the same. i said they ALL ask you to have faith FIRST. and you didnt answer my question. i asked how you decide which religion to give your faith FIRST to, since once you pick one, the others are out. jesus' teachings are different from hinduism, but so what? jesus might appeal to some and hinduism might appeal to others. so is that how you choose? what sounds "nice" to you? that seems like an awful way to determine whats true.

the simple fact is that most people choose the religion that their parents raised them in. when you claim that hindus are going to hell because they chose hinduism is the conceited and narrow-minded view. i bet you have never even examined hinduism in depth, or any other religion for that matter. you just immediately picked whatever was presented to you in the culture in which you grew up. and THEN you have the gall to say that anybody not "lucky" enough to be born into that same culture is going to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT for it! how much more conceited and narrow-minded can you get?

despite your conceit, the reason hindus reject christianity is the exact same reason you reject hinduism. there is simply NO evidence. and the reason hindus choose hinduism is the exact same reason you chose christianity. you were raised in a culture in which you were told that "this religion is true" and you never questioned it.

EDIT: forgot about this...

That graduate program sounds like it involves money. I also seriously doubt ANYONE could get into it. Also, not everyone has time to sign up for a graduate program either. I guess it's the single mothers fault that she can't sign up for a graduate program. Honestly, get real. Not everyone has the life you have.

if you have no time, thats still YOUR choice. regardless, scientists still dont request you to have faith FIRST in anything they say. they publish their methods and anybody can read them for free at the library and try to disprove them using their own experiments. scientists dont NEED you to have faith. the ones studying esoteric minutiae probably dont care if you believe them or not - theyre not claiming disbelief gets you eternal punishment. and the ones studying common things also dont need your faith, because every time you use a piece of technology based on their results, you yourself PROVE that the science works.

 

[Cubemario]

Thanks for completely missing the point. See this?

that we are judged on the basis of what we know and how we act upon it

How much more fair can that possibly get? Lets say if a guy never knew about Jesus Christ, or even God for that matter. That would mean he more than likely would not know what is sin and what isn't. Since he is judged on what he knew and how he acted, he doesn't go to hell and goes to heaven. That same thing applies to EVERYONE. Christian, buddhist, whatever.

If you don't see that as a fair way to judge, please come up with something better. I also would like to hear how you would design this universe, since you have all the answers.

I decided my religion based on my experiences. I also explained I have had very strong personal experiences that validated it for me. My parents had little influence.

Oh and I see you still don't understand what i'm saying. Many things that we believe in our lives are based on faith, one way or the other. So of course all religions are based on faith.

 

[blazedaces]

And you're still completely ignoring the extremely easy possibility that a person never even heard of Jesus or Christianity, so therefore didn't even have that choice.

God, according to you, is technically condemning them all to hell without a choice and therefore simply condemning them from birth.

-blazed

Edit: You've concocted the method you made above (I made my post before you posted yours, sorry). It's not how the bible says god judges.

And I believe ANYTHING based on faith to believe is not worth believing. Science does not require faith. If you think so you do not understand the scientific method fully.

 

[Cubemario]

Where am I? Honestly. What don't you guys understand about this? I JUST ADDRESSED THIS.

 

[Cubemario]

Ok, I guess I just don't know anything. I am also wondering why you say "It's not how the bible says god judges."

Are you a christian? Have you read the bible as much as I have? Do you go through studies on it? Have you gone to college for it? I personally think my opinion about what the bible says matters a lot more since I actually read it and study it.

Anyway, i'm done debating here. It was an interesting experience, but there are way too many atheists here. This debate would be much better if there weren't 10 people ganging up on one. I clearly can't 'take the heat'.

 

[snex]

cubemario, you are claiming that a hindu who has read the bible but found no evidence that it is true will go to hell. now how is that fair?

since you asked how i would do things if i were god, lets first examine how you claim god did things, from a first person view.

1) i create the world and everything in it.
2) i create a being that i know will sin, i tell him not to sin, and when he does, i punish him for it.
3) i get sick of all the sinning going on, so i kill everybody except for 8 people that dont sin so much, even though i know after they repopulate, people are still going to sin.
4) i get sick of all the sinning going on again, so this time i send my son (who is really just me) to teach them to stop sinning.
5) but i know that they wont stop sinning, because after all i made them how they are and i know that sin is in their nature (that i made).
6) so i claim that my son will die to forgive their sins for them. why does he need to die? because i make the rules and i say so!
7) but instead of this being the end, i say that they need to BELIEVE he died for them for it to work. why do they need to believe it? because i make the rules and i say so!
8) i find a bunch of superstitious ancients living in an irrelevant corner of the world and tell them to write this stuff down, because its important.
9) i tell them to spread the word, and anybody who doesnt believe THIS group of superstitious ancients over the thousands of OTHER groups of superstitious ancients has to go to a place of eternal punishment. why? because i make the rules and i say so!

this is really the most absurd story thats ever been told! now, you want to know how i would do it. well lets look at it this way...

when a human being researches a disease and finds a cure for it, we call that a good thing. we call the man a hero, because he has saved lives.

well, imagine a man who didnt have to do any research and hard work to cure a disease. imagine he had a magic wand that could simply poof away any disease he wanted. what would you think of this man if he refused to use the magic wand? i know what i would think... i would think he was an evil sadistic ******* who didnt care that he was personally allowing people to die. hell, im the biggest ******* i know, and *i* would use the wand without hesitation. and thats just wiping out diseases, mind you. thats not to mention floods, fires, tornadoes, and all other problems we have living on this planet. the ONLY excuse anybody who has a magic wand to remove these things has for not using that magic wand is that he does not exist.

 

[Deleted member]

Now, delorted: I really don't like your double standards. I respect the fact that amongst many in this debate hall against Cubemario, you would show him kindness, but I don't believe you would ever do so for an atheist. You also, make the following statement: "From a very rough judgment call, I doubt anyone in this debate hall has experienced enough suffering to truly not believe in a God.

It's personal bias. To be perfectly honest, it's very common to see one atheist post a pretty stupid point and have the next atheist ignore it completely. Do you not call your own side out? It's rare, but that's basically what I did to Cubemario. I don't hate atheists, however, showing kindness to them sounds kind of preachy, to be honest. And I'm not really preaching anything because I have nothing to preach.

For some reason you have a double standard here, clearly assuming that the experiences of those who believe in god holds more weight than those who don't or is more likely to be a worthwhile experience.

I'm not too sure what you mean. I posted that empirical evidence is probably the only thing we can go off of, and if one had sufficient empirical evidence of life sucking (your entire family except you dies in a car accident, your dog dies of cancer the next day, etc, etc) then that would be enough for me to understand the reasoning behind the atheism there. However, this is assuming that having experiences that make you believe in God are good. I'm sure there are people who take unfortunate events as evidence for God as well, but that's not exactly worthwhile, is it? Unfortunate events just suck, but at least you believe in God. I don't see a good trade there.

So obviously the experiences that make you believe in God are probably good ones and therefore are more worthwhile. That doesn't mean, however, that experiences that convince you otherwise are meaningless. Like I said, I find it perfectly reasonable for one to not believe in a God after life has punched you in the balls.

I also find it disappointing that you did not see my blatant double-standard of claiming that God is not necessarily all-loving, but going on to say that if life has proven to you definitively that He is or is not, then you have a justified belief.

Regardless, as hyuga pointed out, what does that have to do with belief in god? If anecdotal evidence is certainly not acceptable as an argument for god... why should we look to our experiences only to confirm our beliefs? Seriously. And why should suffering be the only reason to not believe in God? I think in your eyes the only way one would stop believing in God is if he suffered so much he did not understand God's ways. What about all the other reasons people have given?

Like I said - anecdotal evidence is fine, but obviously it's worthless here. No one will take the experiences of a face-less, name-less avatar to be proof that God exists. To quote an internet meme, personal experience is personal. My only hope is that people who believe in God have the experiences that justify that belief. If they were simply drinking the Kool-Aid, I would be concerned. If not, great.

And lastly, you're probably going to hate this, but I don't really see or understand the reasons people don't believe in God. You guys really have none; that was what my thread was for. You guys basically confirmed my suspicion that you either were seriously creeped out by Christianity or you simply have a lack of belief. If the latter is the case, then in my opinion you're an agnostic. Yadda yadda yadda, the atheist position is necessarily a strong one and therefore a fallacy, yadda yadda yadda, you've all heard this from me before.

And now I believe you're about to start one of your routines of pointing fingers and name-calling by telling people what they should and shouldn't label themselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with the current debate.

Not too sure what you mean. Sorry if you see my defense of human virtue as a routine. This entire debate is semantics in nature; claiming that it is otherwise is pretty foolish. So yes, I do believe that definitions of atheism and agnosticm are relevant to your interests. Would you like to subscribe to my newspaper?

 

[AltF4]

Non belief or disbelief? You guys claim to be "atheists" but I don't see it as such.

I recall putting myself and my beliefs on the spot some time ago. Whatever became of that? That was an interesting (or at least different) topic.

This thread is moving too fast lately!

 

[Aesir]

Weak Atheists state that they lack a belief in deities or supreme beings. While Strong Atheists will make the claim that Deities don't exist. Weak Atheism includes agnostic beliefs.

I can completely understand why people believe in God, it's comforting regardless how delusional it might appear to someone like me. that doesn't matter it makes the believer feel good, like someone is watching out for them. If that works for you then great, more power to you. Just don't preach your evidence less idea as truth, religion is an idea and should criticized like any other idea. Same with Atheism or any other belief, it should criticized and dissected to no end.

I myself have not seen a reason to believe in god, I really tried to but I just felt like I was diluting myself so why lie to myself? There's no reason to believe in God, we don't need god to explain the great mysteries of the universe Science has been trying to do this for centuries and slowly but surely it's getting there.

The Moral Argument doesn't do a whole lot either, as non-believers can be just as moral as theists, and can be just as amoral as theists.

Religion can offer one good thing a sense of community, but like anything else there's a secular version of it. However Religion is the most common because it offers the idea that you'll be saved and you're doing the right thing.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I'm not too sure what you mean. I posted that empirical evidence is probably the only thing we can go off of, and if one had sufficient empirical evidence of life sucking (your entire family except you dies in a car accident, your dog dies of cancer the next day, etc, etc) then that would be enough for me to understand the reasoning behind the atheism there.

Why? You're just repeating what you said earlier but there is still no justification for it.

However, this is assuming that having experiences that make you believe in God are good. I'm sure there are people who take unfortunate events as evidence for God as well, but that's not exactly worthwhile, is it? Unfortunate events just suck, but at least you believe in God. I don't see a good trade there.

How can whether "good" or "bad" things happen to anybody possibly be evidence for God?

So obviously the experiences that make you believe in God are probably good ones and therefore are more worthwhile. That doesn't mean, however, that experiences that convince you otherwise are meaningless. Like I said, I find it perfectly reasonable for one to not believe in a God after life has punched you in the balls.

What does my personal experience have to do with whether an argument about the nature of God is valid or not? I really don't understand your argument.

And lastly, you're probably going to hate this, but I don't really see or understand the reasons people don't believe in God. You guys really have none

You don't need a reason to NOT believe in something EXCEPT the lack of evidence for that something, that's the whole point of this thread, is to debate the so-called proofs and "evidences" of theists. It's the SAME principle behind not needing a reason to NOT believe in Russell's Teapot. Not believing != disbelief.

that was what my thread was for. You guys basically confirmed my suspicion that you either were seriously creeped out by Christianity or you simply have a lack of belief.If the latter is the case, then in my opinion you're an agnostic. Yadda yadda yadda, the atheist position is necessarily a strong one and therefore a fallacy, yadda yadda yadda, you've all heard this from me before.

Well then you don't know what agnosticism or atheism are. You're simply taking a word that has an accepted definition and calling it something else that also has a CONFLICTING established definition. Agnosticism is a position about the nature of God, atheism is a non-position. Your "opinion" that we're agnostics is no more valid than an opinion that you're a bunyip, only I've switched the definitions of human and bunyip around because that's what they mean to me.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought we resolved that, Alt. We both agreed that your stance was in fact a belief and we left it as such.

If you want to try to dispel the idea that you're an atheist because you simply see Christianity as some freaky voodoo cult, you can do so now

Other than that, I recall myself stating that you did not have sufficient justification to truly be an atheist (because hating Christianity isn't good enough)

 

[AltF4]

Your use of terminology is impeccable, Del.

You use the phrase "was in fact a belief" as if it were a bad thing! Snex (and others) are satisfied in the context of this debate to settle with saying essentially "there is no evidence in favor of christianity being the "true" religion so I choose to not believe it until subsequent evidence arises. It is a non-argument, one that makes no claims. It's just simply a response to someone else's assertions.


Though I agree with that stance, I am not afraid to take it one step further. In addition to their being a lack of evidence in support of christianity, I would argue that there IS evidence for the falsehood of christianity. Some of those reasons I posted in your "How can anyone NOT believe in god?" thread.

That's right (I just looked at that old thread). I described my problems with christianity without counter-argument. The only problem was that my examples did not include specific issues with other major religions. I may take that up again soon, then. I've been spending enough time on the boards lately for a while.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Omniscience and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Typical Christian dogma states that god is omniscient, and bestows Free Will upon us, but this is contradictory at best.

Omniscience implies all knowing. He knows everything even our action, so our suppose free will isn't free will.

Actually that doesn't present a problem. If a divine entity is a non-linear being, this gives said non-linear being the capacity to observe all our actions simultaneously. In essence, all times would be his present, therefore what would seem to be knowledge of the future to us would in reality be knowledge of said non-linear entity's "present".


And even without the non-linearity (which seems to describe the Christian concept of God quite nicely in all respects), knowing an action will occur is completely distinct from causing the reaction to occur. Where's the proof omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive?

 

[Chaco]

Ok, I guess I just don't know anything. I am also wondering why you say "It's not how the bible says god judges."

Are you a christian? Have you read the bible as much as I have? Do you go through studies on it? Have you gone to college for it? I personally think my opinion about what the bible says matters a lot more since I actually read it and study it.

Anyway, i'm done debating here. It was an interesting experience, but there are way too many atheists here. This debate would be much better if there weren't 10 people ganging up on one. I clearly can't 'take the heat'.

Agrees whole heartedly.

 

[AltF4]

Adumbrodeus:

Look at my Free Will thread (not that other one started by someone else) for more info as to why Free Will is impossible to begin with. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up there. Otherwise this will be too large of a tangent for this thread.

 

[Aesir]

Actually that doesn't present a problem. If a divine entity is a non-linear being, this gives said non-linear being the capacity to observe all our actions simultaneously. In essence, all times would be his present, therefore what would seem to be knowledge of the future to us would in reality be knowledge of said non-linear entity's "present". And even without the non-linearity (which seems to describe the Christian concept of God quite nicely in all respects), knowing an action will occur is completely distinct from causing the reaction to occur. Where's the proof omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive?

The problem that arises is he still knows the future, regardless the choice you went with god will say I knew you would. No matter what you choose he knows what you're going to choose linear or not. Omniscient includes knowing all possible outcomes.

You seem to think he has to cause the reaction in order for it to be true, that's not the case. It's like if you were to re-read a book. You know all the actions those characters will preform so in essence they have no free-will. You know what they're going to do, but you aren't affecting their actions. This in essence if a crude version of omniscient power god possess.

 

[Deleted member]

Hyuga I think we fundamentally are confusing each other here.

I'm going to simplify matters without making huge quote streams.

Empirical evidence is an acceptable form of proof in deciding whether or not He exists. That means your experiences, bad or good, can be used to convince yourself justifiably that He does or does not exist. I think we agree. If not, then please tell me because I'm getting very confused.

If you read my post before hand, I already stated that non-belief and disbelief are different things. I'm not calling you disbelievers, I'm calling you non-believers. Lack of belief in God is not a belief that there is no God. I know that, you know that, why are we arguing?

Well then you don't know what agnosticism or atheism are. You're simply taking a word that has an accepted definition and calling it something else that also has a CONFLICTING established definition. Agnosticism is a position about the nature of God, atheism is a non-position. Your "opinion" that we're agnostics is no more valid than an opinion that you're a bunyip, only I've switched the definitions of human and bunyip around because that's what they mean to me.

If you say so. Weak atheism dips heavily into agnosticism and strong atheism is a belief, we both know this. You are right about agnosticism, but if you think critically upon that idea of not being able to gain knowledge, you can justifiably be left with the idea that agnosticism is the neutral position.

Imagine a scale between -10 and 10:

-10 is "I know there is no God"

and 10 is "I know there is a God"

In my opinion, everything that falls between -9 and +9 are in their own way forms of agnosticism. Less of course, the further you travel towards the extremes, but agnosticism nonetheless.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Empirical evidence is an acceptable form of proof in deciding whether or not He exists. That means your experiences, bad or good, can be used to convince yourself justifiably that He does or does not exist. I think we agree. If not, then please tell me because I'm getting very confused.

I just really don't see how "a good thing happened to me" can be used to specifically justify the position that God exists. That is my major concern.

If you say so. Weak atheism dips heavily into agnosticism and strong atheism is a belief, we both know this. You are right about agnosticism, but if you think critically upon that idea of not being able to gain knowledge, you can justifiably be left with the idea that agnosticism is the neutral position.

In my opinion, everything that falls between -9 and +9 are in their own way forms of agnosticism. Less of course, the further you travel towards the extremes, but agnosticism nonetheless.

Well the thing is that agnosticism is specifically the postition that the question of God existing or not is inherently impossible to ascertain. I don't actually know if it is IMPOSSIBLE or not (it may very well be), all I see is a lack of evidence supporting the position that affirms God's existence. And also I would say that one is only atheistic/agnostic/whatever with respect to the definition of "God" you happen to be using. It is possible to define "God" in such away that isn't self-consistent, i.e. inherently contradictory (so the agnostic position is untenable), and you can also define "God" in such a way that it defies any possible observation on the part of mankind. You could say that all agnostics are 'at least' atheists, but it doesn't necessarily work the other way around.

BUT, if you prefer, let's forget about 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' labels altogether and just talk about claims or arguments that have been made specifically in this thread, I think that is more likely to lead to progress. If someone specifically claims to have proof that God doesn't exist, then we will examine his arguments. To my knowledge nobody in here claims that, although some of us might claim that certain definitions of God are not self-consistent. We are just evaluating the claims of theists, and pointing out fallacies, that is our job in this thread, that's all; we have no obligation to provide evidence that God does not exist beyond showing theist arguments are invalid or unsound.

 

[Peeze]

The problem that arises is he still knows the future, regardless the choice you went with god will say I knew you would. No matter what you choose he knows what you're going to choose linear or not. Omniscient includes knowing all possible outcomes.

You seem to think he has to cause the reaction in order for it to be true, that's not the case. It's like if you were to re-read a book. You know all the actions those characters will preform so in essence they have no free-will. You know what they're going to do, but you aren't affecting their actions. This in essence if a crude version of omniscient power god possess.

isnt that free will?

I think so. dictionary.com says:
free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

 

[Zook]

cubemario, you are claiming that a hindu who has read the bible but found no evidence that it is true will go to hell. now how is that fair?

since you asked how i would do things if i were god, lets first examine how you claim god did things, from a first person view.

1) i create the world and everything in it.
2) i create a being that i know will sin, i tell him not to sin, and when he does, i punish him for it.
3) i get sick of all the sinning going on, so i kill everybody except for 8 people that dont sin so much, even though i know after they repopulate, people are still going to sin.
4) i get sick of all the sinning going on again, so this time i send my son (who is really just me) to teach them to stop sinning.
5) but i know that they wont stop sinning, because after all i made them how they are and i know that sin is in their nature (that i made).
6) so i claim that my son will die to forgive their sins for them. why does he need to die? because i make the rules and i say so!
7) but instead of this being the end, i say that they need to BELIEVE he died for them for it to work. why do they need to believe it? because i make the rules and i say so!
8) i find a bunch of superstitious ancients living in an irrelevant corner of the world and tell them to write this stuff down, because its important.
9) i tell them to spread the word, and anybody who doesnt believe THIS group of superstitious ancients over the thousands of OTHER groups of superstitious ancients has to go to a place of eternal punishment. why? because i make the rules and i say so!

this is really the most absurd story thats ever been told! now, you want to know how i would do it. well lets look at it this way...

when a human being researches a disease and finds a cure for it, we call that a good thing. we call the man a hero, because he has saved lives.

well, imagine a man who didnt have to do any research and hard work to cure a disease. imagine he had a magic wand that could simply poof away any disease he wanted. what would you think of this man if he refused to use the magic wand? i know what i would think... i would think he was an evil sadistic ******* who didnt care that he was personally allowing people to die. hell, im the biggest ******* i know, and *i* would use the wand without hesitation. and thats just wiping out diseases, mind you. thats not to mention floods, fires, tornadoes, and all other problems we have living on this planet. the ONLY excuse anybody who has a magic wand to remove these things has for not using that magic wand is that he does not exist.

This doesn't help to disprove the existance of (a) God, but Christianity. God, if he were to exist, could do whatever the hell he wanted to. Even if he doesn't love us, he could still exist.

I consider myself an agnostic-atheist. I find no reason to believe in a god, but I don't see alot evidence against the idea.

Sway me.

 

[Aesir]

isnt that free will?

I think so. dictionary.com says:
free will: free and independent choice; voluntary decision.

am I not being clear or something?

The omniscient is having the ability to know everything past, present, future. How will you have free choice if your future is already known by god? It's a paradox, if god is omniscient he knows your future what you'll do, in many respects he's read your book and knows all your actions.

That negates free will as you have no choice but to follow the plot line.

 

[Peeze]

Who created the plot line? Your own actions-choice-determine the plot line, because as you yourself admitted the reader doesn't affect character actions.

 

[Aesir]

Who created the plot line? Your own actions-choice-determine the plot line, because as you yourself admitted the reader doesn't affect character actions.

That's the million dollar question now isn't it? But you're taking my analogy quite literally, which is my fault.

What you seem to be suggesting is makes far less sense. So I'll just try and make the claim as blunt as I can for you.

God is omniscient so he knows our actions, he doesn't force our actions, like you said which I agree with. For debate purposes we'll assume god exists for this moment. God knows everything; Past, Present, Future. However by knowing what you're going to do before you do it, is not free will.

You see a door, you can either open it, or leave it. God knows you'll open it because he can see the future because of omniscience, so he knows you'll open the door and thus you do. While you think you have free will, the free will isn't really there more a less the illusion of free will. he isn't effecting our actions, but he knows them before they happen that's not free will at all.

Free-will when discussing the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is merely an illusion, you may think you have free will. But to god you're just following a predetermined plot line.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adumbrodeus:

Look at my Free Will thread (not that other one started by someone else) for more info as to why Free Will is impossible to begin with. If you want to discuss it further, bring it up there. Otherwise this will be too large of a tangent for this thread.

Whether free will can exist in the first place is an entirely separate issue from whether free will and omniscience can co-exist.

The problem that arises is he still knows the future, regardless the choice you went with god will say I knew you would. No matter what you choose he knows what you're going to choose linear or not. Omniscient includes knowing all possible outcomes.

You seem to think he has to cause the reaction in order for it to be true, that's not the case. It's like if you were to re-read a book. You know all the actions those characters will preform so in essence they have no free-will. You know what they're going to do, but you aren't affecting their actions. This in essence if a crude version of omniscient power god possess.

Again, how so?

That does not logically follow that just because you re observe the same event that it's somehow acquired new constraints just because you know what the outcome will be.

am I not being clear or something?

The omniscient is having the ability to know everything past, present, future. How will you have free choice if your future is already known by god? It's a paradox, if god is omniscient he knows your future what you'll do, in many respects he's read your book and knows all your actions.

That negates free will as you have no choice but to follow the plot line.

With free will, the plot-line was determined when you made the choice.

The fact that an omniscient being might have already seem your plot doesn't change the fact that the plot is still YOUR creation, not the being's. The being is just an observer.

 

[Aesir]

Again, how so?

That does not logically follow that just because you re observe the same event that it's somehow acquired new constraints just because you know what the outcome will be.

No, it's an illusion of free will.

You may believe you have free will but to god you're following the predetermined story line of your life. From the moment your born god knows all your actions before they happen. To god there is no free will, but to us it appears so.

With free will, the plot-line was determined when you made the choice.

The fact that an omniscient being might have already seem your plot doesn't change the fact that the plot is still YOUR creation, not the being's. The being is just an observer.

The Being is an observer who knows the future, as your fate is predetermined. I blame myself for using a poorly thought out analogy, God may be the observer but he's also someone who knows what you're going to do before you do it.

Like I mentioned already it's an illusion of free will, to him we're just following our predetermined fate.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, it's an illusion of free will.

You may believe you have free will but to god you're following the predetermined story line of your life. From the moment your born god knows all your actions before they happen. To god there is no free will, but to us it appears so.






The Being is an observer who knows the future, as your fate is predetermined. I blame myself for using a poorly thought out analogy, God may be the observer but he's also someone who knows what you're going to do before you do it.

Like I mentioned already it's an illusion of free will, to him we're just following our predetermined fate.

Begging the question....

You have not proven that there's anything inherent in knowing the outcome that removes free choice.You're just acting like it's assumed.

 

[Zook]

That's the million dollar question now isn't it? But you're taking my analogy quite literally, which is my fault.

What you seem to be suggesting is makes far less sense. So I'll just try and make the claim as blunt as I can for you.

God is omniscient so he knows our actions, he doesn't force our actions, like you said which I agree with. For debate purposes we'll assume god exists for this moment. God knows everything; Past, Present, Future. However by knowing what you're going to do before you do it, is not free will.

You see a door, you can either open it, or leave it. God knows you'll open it because he can see the future because of omniscience, so he knows you'll open the door and thus you do. While you think you have free will, the free will isn't really there more a less the illusion of free will. he isn't effecting our actions, but he knows them before they happen that's not free will at all.

Free-will when discussing the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is merely an illusion, you may think you have free will. But to god you're just following a predetermined plot line.

You're talking about an all-knowing god here. God could still exist, even if he wasn't omniscient. However, you do bring up a good point- Free will cannot exist with the presence of an omniscient being.

 

[Aesir]

Begging the question....

You have not proven that there's anything inherent in knowing the outcome that removes free choice.You're just acting like it's assumed.

Yes I have.

Omniscient is knowing everything, past, present, future. It's all inherent knowledge, how else would he know this knowledge?

He knows our actions before they happen, sure there are other possibilities but he knows what we're going to do. Free-will in the religious aspect cannot exist with an omniscient god. The choices are an illusion.

You're talking about an all-knowing god here. God could still exist, even if he wasn't omniscient. However, you do bring up a good point- Free will cannot exist with the presence of an omniscient being.

If I wanted to argue god didn't exist I wouldn't limit myself to omniscience, I'm simply pointing out the contradiction lol.