How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Aesir]

I have no idea what Luigi is asking, is he suggesting it would be better of Atheists just fell back on pascals wager? Belief isn't a switch that you can turn on and off like a light, in order to say "I believe this" You really have to believe it, I can't wake up tomorrow and say "I believe in god." much like I didn't want up one day and say "I don't believe in god."

Pascals Wager is a huge load of bull, it assumes that the Christian god is the correct god, when in fact Christians have no more evidence their god exists then Pagan has for their gods.


Also without skeptics or non-believers critiquing your beliefs we wouldn't have had many social/political/ect. advances that we have had. Without Free Thinkers who weren't bound by the laws of Dogma we probably wouldn't know the sun is the center of our solar system, Evolution is indeed a fact, or that the world was indeed round and not flat.

 

[link6616]

Evolution is indeed a fact, or that the world was indeed round and not flat.

Its a theory actually... Referred to as fact quite often though, but still theory.

 

[Aesir]

No it's a fact, the theory helps explain the fact. You're confusing theory with scientific theory, which happens all to often.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Evolution is theory, actually.

How intelligent is calling *anything* 'bull'?

Christians' evidence is in the records of the Bible, I'm sure of. When did the Bible start being written?

 

[Byronman]

Duly noted, Byronman.

You may want to look at my edit for that post...

Its a theory actually... Referred to as fact quite often though, but still theory.

However there is NO DOUBT that it exists

Also without skeptics or non-believers critiquing your beliefs we wouldn't have had many social/political/ect. advances that we have had. Without Free Thinkers who weren't bound by the laws of Dogma we probably wouldn't know the sun is the center of our solar system, Evolution is indeed a fact, or that the world was indeed round and not flat.

If you think about it. This is getting off topic...

 

[Aesir]

Evolution is theory, actually.

How intelligent is calling *anything* 'bull'?

Christians' evidence is in the records of the Bible, I'm sure of.

Look above you, it's actually a fact, many people seem to get this idea that science works like a ladder. Theory -> law.

That's incorrect.

Evolution has been regarded as a fact we know organism change over a period of time it can be seen in fruit flies and finches. You might be asking where does the theory come into play? A theory explains the fact, if we know life forms change over time, then how do they change? why? The theory is meant to answer those questions, using evidence a theory can develop to explain certain phenomenon.

Because Pascals Wager is probably one of the dumbest things a Philosopher has ever said, it's a very unintelligent idea. So I guess you can say it didn't deserve an intelligent insult as the wager is rather unintelligent.

 

[marthanoob]

Could we not be modeled after his mind?

Your speculation makes sense, but it has no circumstantial evidence backing it, unlike my point.

And emotion is only a weakness if you see it as one, it can also be seen as a strength.

Emotion contains in it weakness as it contains in it strength, but they go together and are therefore imperfect.

That wasn't the point of my post. And it seems you're not understanding that religion is free from the rules of logic because of my given points. It doesn't matter if God's perfection or imperfection is self-contradictory or whatever. People believe that he exists, so he does. No matter how illogical the existence of God exists, people can still believe.

I know it wasn't, I was just looking for a chance to butt in. Heheh, sorry.

The common theistic argument of "You are trying to explain/refute God with logic without understanding that God is beyond logic." is starting to make sense to me.

It would be so much easier to believe the world was flat.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Look above you, it's actually a fact, many people seem to get this idea that science works like a ladder. Theory -> law.

That's incorrect.

Evolution has been regarded as a fact we know organism change over a period of time it can be seen in fruit flies and finches. You might be asking where does the theory come into play? A theory explains the fact, if we know life forms change over time, then how do they change? why? The theory is meant to answer those questions, using evidence a theory can develop to explain certain phenomenon.

Because Pascals Wager is probably one of the dumbest things a Philosopher has ever said, it's a very unintelligent idea. So I guess you can say it didn't deserve an intelligent insult as the wager is rather unintelligent.

But isn't it your opinion if *anything* is 'dumb'? I can see you don't want to talk about Pascals wager, as it doesnt deal with earthly reward. But you don't haft to deem your opinion about it as fact, and thus call it whatever nasty word you want to...

 

[Aesir]

It's probably the opinion of other Philosophers as well, it's a narrow minded idea it doesn't answer anything and uses a risk/reward system. What it fails to point out is that choosing a god to believe in is still taking a big risk. You run the risk of choosing the wrong god, many religions as well have various different sects what if you pick the wrong sect? The whole Wager is just a huge fallacy.

 

[Byronman]

But isn't it your opinion if *anything* is 'dumb'? I can see you don't want to talk about Pascals wager, as it doesnt deal with earthly reward. But you don't haft to deem your opinion about it as fact, and thus call it whatever nasty word you want to...

Your kind of missing th point of his post...

It's probably the opinion of other Philosophers as well, it's a narrow minded idea it doesn't answer anything and uses a risk/reward system. What it fails to point out is that choosing a god to believe in is still taking a big risk. You run the risk of choosing the wrong god, many religions as well have various different sects what if you pick the wrong sect? The whole Wager is just a huge fallacy.

This doesn't necessarily have to do with the topic at hand...

 

[link6616]

I'm a strong believer in the babelfish argument for god. If we could be certain god existed, then he couldn't be god in the way we know he is.

I know that its a weak defense, but this is faith, not science. Belief in god is irrational. And in answer to the original statement "How can anybody believe in god" its really simple. People in bad situations need to believe there is something out there, which is why religion is on a constant increase in third world countries.

I think that living in a first world country makes it easier to accept the idea that there is nothing better after life, simply because we live an easier life (often) then those in third world countries. the easier life is for us, the less we need to believe that there is something better.

I also think that alot of people feel more comfortable with the idea that things were made specifcally, with purpose.

 

[blazedaces]

Aesir, pascal's wager is a way to consider an argument. It's only that in the religious aspect it's simply used in an incorrect manner.

Not only do you have to choose the "right god", so to speak, but different sects of each religion often disagree that anyone else is going to heaven. Which should you be?

Furthermore, you forget to add that if god doesn't exist, and you do believe, much of your lifestyle can be a complete waste.

As for riboflavinbob: are you just telling us that people are allowed to believe what they want? Who cares?

Look, your argument applied to the world being flat: I believe the world is flat. I'm allowed to believe in it. It does not require logic, it only requires faith. No one can really take that away from me.

Who cares? Why are you mentioning it? What makes the idea of god any special? You could apply that to any concept, but it just sounds silly. Why should talking about god make it all of a sudden profound?

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Blaze: It's original use was used in a religious sense, Blaise Pascal brought forth the suggestion that since as he put it; God can not be prove true or false you simple should believe in him anyway to gain the best possible outcome.

However what you mention is a very good point, pascals wager can be used in more ways then religion.

 

[blazedaces]

Blaze: It's original use was used in a religious sense, Blaise Pascal brought forth the suggestion that since as he put it; God can not be prove true or false you simple should believe in him anyway to gain the best possible outcome.

However what you mention is a very good point, pascals wager can be used in more ways then religion.

Very true. I forgot that was indeed its original purpose.

-blazed

 

[Byronman]

As for riboflavinbob: are you just telling us that people are allowed to believe what they want? Who cares?

Look, your argument applied to the world being flat: I believe the world is flat. I'm allowed to believe in it. It does not require logic, it only requires faith. No one can really take that away from me.

Who cares? Why are you mentioning it? What makes the idea of god any special? You could apply that to any concept, but it just sounds silly. Why should talking about god make it all of a sudden profound?

-blazed

This part kind of answers it

That is why it's called faith, it requires no evidence, no proof, but you can still come to the conclusion that your life has meaning and happiness. Doesn't that seem like a much happier existence, to believe and be happy rather than sulk around and waiting for everything to be proven? That, TS, is how anyone can believe in God.

 

[riboflavinbob]

As for riboflavinbob: are you just telling us that people are allowed to believe what they want? Who cares?

Look, your argument applied to the world being flat: I believe the world is flat. I'm allowed to believe in it. It does not require logic, it only requires faith. No one can really take that away from me.

Who cares? Why are you mentioning it? What makes the idea of god any special? You could apply that to any concept, but it just sounds silly. Why should talking about god make it all of a sudden profound?

The world, as we physically know it, can be proven or disproven round or flat. It can because there is scientific evidence and proof to support that it is round. Religion has less evidence to support its claims. But because it is a belief, it doesn't require evidence. You cannot take the same method I mentioned and apply it to anything. And you talk as if you completely understand the concept of God, and that that he doesn't provide any subject of deep thought to you. You're still talking about religion as if it were a conventional science. When someone's belief about a subject of a conventional science is contradictory to what logic proves, it's called ignorance.

 

[blazedaces]

The world, as we physically know it, can be proven or disproven round or flat. It can because there is scientific evidence and proof to support that it is round. Religion has less evidence to support its claims. But because it is a belief, it doesn't require evidence. You cannot take the same method I mentioned and apply it to anything. And you talk as if you completely understand the concept of God, and that that he doesn't provide any subject of deep thought to you. You're still talking about religion as if it were a conventional science. When someone's belief about a subject of a conventional science is contradictory to what logic proves, it's called ignorance.

Maybe the world being flat or round was a bad example, but how about the examples already given that sound just as silly:

-Santa Claus
-The tooth fairy
-Bertrand Russell's Teapot in space
-The flying spaghetti monster

And there are many branches of philosophy and psychology (sometimes) even that are considered non-conventional science. Yet these all take reasoning and logic to consider. Why is the concept of god an exception to the rule?

-blazed

 

[riboflavinbob]

Maybe the world being flat or round was a bad example, but how about the examples already given that sound just as silly:

-Santa Claus
-The tooth fairy
-Bertrand Russell's Teapot in space
-The flying spaghetti monster

And there are many branches of philosophy and psychology (sometimes) even that are considered non-conventional science. Yet these all take reasoning and logic to consider. Why is the concept of god an exception to the rule?

-blazed

The concept of god is a part of religion. Religion is in a seperate category. I was wrong before for simply saying that religion was just a "non-conventional science". I'd have to say that all of your examples could be put into a category similar to religion. If a person truly believes Santa Claus exists, then he exists, no matter what evidence is put against it (same goes for the tooth fairy) If someone truly believes there is an orbiting teapot in space, then there is. There is no evidence for or against it. But it is a belief. Even if logic says it is completely improbable and probably impossible for there to be a teapot in orbit, a belief can come to the same conclusion as if there was undeniable evidence for this teapot. And if you read any of what I originally posted, you would understand the purpose and nature of belief. Philosophical and psychological studies are still considered "sciences" because they are based on scientific method and reason (as you stated "these all take reasoning and logic to consider). Even if these are non-conventional sciences, they are not part of a belief system. This puts them in a different category, apart from religion.

 

[blazedaces]

The concept of god is a part of religion. Religion is in a seperate category. I was wrong before for simply saying that religion was just a "non-conventional science". I'd have to say that all of your examples could be put into a category similar to religion. If a person truly believes Santa Claus exists, then he exists, no matter what evidence is put against it (same goes for the tooth fairy) If someone truly believes there is an orbiting teapot in space, then there is. There is no evidence for or against it. But it is a belief. Even if logic says it is completely improbable and probably impossible for there to be a teapot in orbit, a belief can come to the same conclusion as if there was undeniable evidence for this teapot. And if you read any of what I originally posted, you would understand the purpose and nature of belief. Philosophical and psychological studies are still considered "sciences" because they are based on scientific method and reason (as you stated "these all take reasoning and logic to consider). Even if these are non-conventional sciences, they are not part of a belief system. This puts them in a different category, apart from religion.

Do me a favor and define belief. Right now, you've referred to the word "belief" as something that is a conclusion and as something that can "come to" a conclusion. We can't even start to talk about how your idea of belief doesn't make sense if I don't know what exactly is your idea of belief. You've described it, but never specifically defined it.

Now try to define existence. Something either exists or it does not and its existence can not be based on people's belief in it. I'm sorry, but that leads to obvious contradictions.

Your idea of "belief" is all nice and pretty, until it's used as reasoning to hurt others. While it's just making people happy and helping the world, it's useful, but every time it's used for malicious intent (please tell me you can think of obvious examples, remember we're talking about all religion in general) it's still what it is, belief (again, please define this clearly).

I personally think these arbitrary categories for "beliefs" or conclusions are completely unnecessary and unreasonable. All conclusions should be subject to the same tests, doubts, and judgments.

You need to provide a good reason why conclusions based on "faith" or "belief" or "religion" should be free of these tests, doubts, and judgments.

Lastly, are you actually telling me that your belief in god is as strong as your belief in the tooth fairy?

-blazed

 

[arrowhead]

The concept of god is a part of religion. Religion is in a seperate category. I was wrong before for simply saying that religion was just a "non-conventional science". I'd have to say that all of your examples could be put into a category similar to religion. If a person truly believes Santa Claus exists, then he exists, no matter what evidence is put against it (same goes for the tooth fairy) If someone truly believes there is an orbiting teapot in space, then there is. There is no evidence for or against it. But it is a belief. Even if logic says it is completely improbable and probably impossible for there to be a teapot in orbit, a belief can come to the same conclusion as if there was undeniable evidence for this teapot. And if you read any of what I originally posted, you would understand the purpose and nature of belief. Philosophical and psychological studies are still considered "sciences" because they are based on scientific method and reason (as you stated "these all take reasoning and logic to consider). Even if these are non-conventional sciences, they are not part of a belief system. This puts them in a different category, apart from religion.

this is completely stupid. facts are independent of what anyone believes.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Do me a favor and define belief. Right now, you've referred to the word "belief" as something that is a conclusion and as something that can "come to" a conclusion. We can't even start to talk about how your idea of belief doesn't make sense if I don't know what exactly is your idea of belief. You've described it, but never specifically defined it.

Now try to define existence. Something either exists or it does not and its existence can not be based on people's belief in it. I'm sorry, but that leads to obvious contradictions.

Your idea of "belief" is all nice and pretty, until it's used as reasoning to hurt others. While it's just making people happy and helping the world, it's useful, but every time it's used for malicious intent (please tell me you can think of obvious examples, remember we're talking about all religion in general) it's still what it is, belief (again, please define this clearly).

I personally think these arbitrary categories for "beliefs" or conclusions are completely unnecessary and unreasonable. All conclusions should be subject to the same tests, doubts, and judgments.

You need to provide a good reason why conclusions based on "faith" or "belief" or "religion" should be free of these tests, doubts, and judgments.

Lastly, are you actually telling me that your belief in god is as strong as your belief in the tooth fairy?

-blazed

First of all, I'm atheist. On top of that, I don't believe that anything supernatural exists. I never even thought I'd be arguing for God.

It is not necesary to see something and experience something to "know" it exists. The existence of God for example is believed by many people as true. If one has a conciousness, then one has a sense of one's world. If you believe there is no god, then there is no god. But for those who believe in god, their sense of their own world has the existence of god because of the assumption that his existence is true. The nature of religion doesn't require direct physical influence.

Belief, its definition by itself, means the state of mind in which something is assumed to be true. The knowledge and notion of God's existence only needs one to believe in his existence.

It only requires one to assume his existence is true. For god to exist, you only need to "know that" and not "know how" because that is the nature of god.

You have your own conciousness, and in your existence and view of the world, God does not exist (nor does he in mine).

It's just the way religion works. In one person's world something like... dogs, may be a source disgust and fear, in another person's world dogs could be a source of happiness. But in the physical world, a dog is simply an animal. The existence of "dogs: disgusting, scary creatures" does not exist in a dog lovers world. These different interpretations of dogs are called beliefs. By "world" i mean "interpretation of the physical planet Earth". So in comparison to this "dog" analogy, "god" does not exist in an atheist's world. but "god" exists in a theists world. Because God is a belief. It is a BELIEF. The only difference between the two worlds is belief. The assumption that something is true. The existence of belief means the existence of God. Because God is a belief.

 

[RDK]

First of all, I'm atheist. On top of that, I don't believe that anything supernatural exists. I never even thought I'd be arguing for God.

It is not necesary to see something and experience something to "know" it exists.

Actually, it kind of is. You can "believe vehemently" that the Eiffel Tower exists, based on the evidence provided by history books, pictues, word of mouth, etc., but unless you go and see it for yourself, you can't bee 100% sure it actually does exist. What if it's an enormous conspiracy or farce?

The existence of God for example is believed by many people as true. If one has a conciousness, then one has a sense of one's world. If you believe there is no god, then there is no god.

Also not true. Your answer dabbles in experiencialism, and it's a ridiculous outlook. Merely believing something does not make it so, or vice versa. Reality doesn't care what you believe. Things do and do not exist.

But for those who believe in god, their sense of their own world has the existence of god because of the assumption that his existence is true. The nature of religion doesn't require direct physical influence.

Which is where religion fails.

Belief, its definition by itself, means the state of mind in which something is assumed to be true. The knowledge and notion of God's existence only needs one to believe in his existence.

As does everything else, when provided with sufficient evidence (I.E., the Eiffel Tower). The only difference is that the argument from the side of God existing has supplied zero credible evidence for his existence.

It only requires one to assume his existence is true. For god to exist, you only need to "know that" and not "know how" because that is the nature of god.

But you can't "know something exists" when that something doesn't exist.

You have your own conciousness, and in your existence and view of the world, God does not exist (nor does he in mine).

Whether or not something exists doesn't vary from person to person. It's not a matter of in which person's consciousness does he exist--it's a matter of people's beliefs being wrong. Just like if I believed in a giant flying spaghetti monster flying over someone's head, even though there isn't one, and I'm just possibly crazy. Because I believe in the spaghetti monster with all my consciousness does not mean it exists.

It's just the way religion works. In one person's world something like... dogs, may be a source disgust and fear, in another person's world dogs could be a source of happiness. But in the physical world, a dog is simply an animal.

Things like whether or not a dog is a source of pleasure or disgust is subjective. Whether or not God exists is not subjective, unless you're just diving into semantics. Which I'd rather not do after the whole Yossarian tangent.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Actually, it kind of is. You can "believe vehemently" that the Eiffel Tower exists, based on the evidence provided by history books, pictues, word of mouth, etc., but unless you go and see it for yourself, you can't bee 100% sure it actually does exist. What if it's an enormous conspiracy or farce?



Also not true. Your answer dabbles in experiencialism, and it's a ridiculous outlook. Merely believing something does not make it so, or vice versa. Reality doesn't care what you believe. Things do and do not exist.



Which is where religion fails.



As does everything else, when provided with sufficient evidence (I.E., the Eiffel Tower). The only difference is that the argument from the side of God existing has supplied zero credible evidence for his existence.



But you can't "know something exists" when that something doesn't exist.



Whether or not something exists doesn't vary from person to person. It's not a matter of in which person's consciousness does he exist--it's a matter of people's beliefs being wrong. Just like if I believed in a giant flying spaghetti monster flying over someone's head, even though there isn't one, and I'm just possibly crazy. Because I believe in the spaghetti monster with all my consciousness does not mean it exists.

It's just the way religion works. In one person's world something like... dogs, may be a

Things like whether or not a dog is a source of pleasure or disgust is subjective. Whether or not God exists is not subjective, unless you're just diving into semantics. Which I'd rather not do after the whole Yossarian tangent.

It's obvious that you still think "God" is something that can be understood completely. And that his "existence" can be compared to the "existence" of any common person, place, or object. I can't really see how God is not subjective. The existence of the belief itself already bases itself on peoples' prespectives. But I have to agree with you when you say "God does not exist" because he does not in the sense you are speaking of. But for people who do BELIEVE in God, God exists, because the belief of God exists. God is a belief. I made a mistake trying to tie in the "existence" as you are talking about. When you say "But you can't "know something exists" when that something doesn't exist." You are referring to the physical, existence of God in both the worlds of theists and atheists. I still don't understand how you can possibly be talking about God with logical terms. It's already an established fact that if you were to look at God from an earthly standpoint (your idea of "existence"), thinking that logics rules apply to him, he will prove himself self-contradictory.

God is a belief. Do not even try to use logic to figure religion out.

 

[RDK]

I don't think you're getting the point.

Simply "believing" that a God exists does not mean he exists, no matter if it's in someone's consciousness, or in the physical world. Yes, the belief and the concept exist, but the physical representation is not there.

Belief in something =/= existence of something. It's as simple as that.

 

[riboflavinbob]

I don't think you're getting the point.

Simply "believing" that a God exists does not mean he exists, no matter if it's in someone's consciousness, or in the physical world. Yes, the belief and the concept exist, but the physical representation is not there.

Belief in something =/= existence of something. It's as simple as that.

You really think religion needs physical representation? You really think people need physical representation of god? If you do, you don't have the slightest idea of what religion is about. Religion, is also known as FAITH or BELIEF. You say Belief in something =/= existence of something. but what you don't understand is that that "something" is a belief itself. It's not some "thing" that needs physical representation. It's not some "thing" that can be reasoned with.

The point of faith is to give people hope and allow them to believe, no matter how dire the consequences, and im sure this is very helpful in many situations. How some people don't realize the difference still puzzles me. Religion/faith is a whole different subject itself and destroys itself when mixed with pragmatic rationality.

Religion does not need evidence or proof because it is a belief. You are simply being too close minded thinking that there can only be one absolute right and one absolute wrong.

You do not have a belief of God. I do not have a belief of God. Therefore, God does not exist, because our belief does not exist.

(whats with you and posting in red?)

 

[adumbrodeus]

I don't think you're getting the point.

Simply "believing" that a God exists does not mean he exists, no matter if it's in someone's consciousness, or in the physical world. Yes, the belief and the concept exist, but the physical representation is not there.

Belief in something =/= existence of something. It's as simple as that.

Actually, I think you're not getting his point, he's stating that God is a belief, and existence of a belief is proven by somebody holding a belief. Same as an idea.



However, it's totally irrelevant, since we're not arguing whether the belief of God exists, we're arguing whether the ENTITY "God" exists.



The fact that the belief of God exists is easy enough to prove given the existence of at least one theist, but that's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hang.

Religion does not need evidence or proof because it is a belief. You are simply being too close minded thinking that there can only be one absolute right and one absolute wrong.

You do not have a belief of God. I do not have a belief of God. Therefore, God does not exist, because our belief does not exist.

(whats with you and posting in red?)

But this thread is not whether the belief exists, it's whether an entity that mirrors that belief exists. They're totally separate things, just like my belief that the Eiffel tower exists and the Eiffel tower itself are completely separate things.

We dealt with an equivalent subtopic before, it bears no relevance to the topic at hand.

 

[RDK]

You really think religion needs physical representation? You really think people need physical representation of god? If you do, you don't have the slightest idea of what religion is about. Religion, is also known as FAITH or BELIEF. You say but what you don't understand is that that "something" is a belief itself.

Of course "God" is a belief. I never stated otherwise. But in your post you stated that "God" exists in their consciousness, just on the merit that the belief, or concept, of God exists. This is false.

This is the exact same argument we got into when Yossarian came in here. Concepts do not imply actual existence. Maybe you should define your terms more carefully.

Religion does not need evidence or proof because it is a belief. You are simply being too close minded thinking that there can only be one absolute right and one absolute wrong.

When did I say that there's an absolute right and absolute wrong? Things do or do not exist. This has nothing to do with morals.

You do not have a belief of God. I do not have a belief of God. Therefore, God does not exist, because our belief does not exist.

What? What are you talking about? God existing doesn't depend on whether or not someone believes. How many more times do I have to say that?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Of course "God" is a belief. I never stated otherwise. But in your post you stated that "God" exists in their consciousness, just on the merit that the belief, or concept, of God exists. This is false.

Wrong.... the belief of God does exist, but it's completely discrete from what we're discussing here. We're discussing God as an entity.


Without that recognition, you've lost this discussion, because there are plenty of examples to illustrate that the belief exists. Continually misunderstanding his argument won't help either.

 

[RDK]

Wrong.... the belief of God does exist, but it's completely discrete from what we're discussing here. We're discussing God as an entity.


Without that recognition, you've lost this discussion, because there are plenty of examples to illustrate that the belief exists. Continually misunderstanding his argument won't help either.

How am I misunderstanding his argument? Never once have I said that the "belief" of God doesn't exist. What he's talking about is the entity of God existing in their consciousness, just because the belief also exists.

This is exactly the same crap Yoss pulled.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Of course "God" is a belief. I never stated otherwise. But in your post you stated that "God" exists in their consciousness, just on the merit that the belief, or concept, of God exists. This is false.

This is the exact same argument we got into when Yossarian came in here. Concepts do not imply actual existence. Maybe you should define your terms more carefully.



When did I say that there's an absolute right and absolute wrong? Things do or do not exist. This has nothing to do with morals.



What? What are you talking about? God existing doesn't depend on whether or not someone believes. How many more times do I have to say that?

If you already know God is a belief, what was the point of this thread? How did this get to be 100+ pages? There's no way you can solve anything if you're trying to disprove the existence of God as a physical entity. I thought you people were deeper than just "proving God's physical existence". Of course he doesn't physically exist. If he was a physical entity he would have to abide by the rules of logic. That's why its called a belief, that doesn't have to follow logical rules.

"If god is omnipotent, he has the power to do anything. ANYTHING.

God can create heavy stones.

God can lift heavy stones.

But can god create a stone so heavy? that he himself cannot lift?

Here is an obvious paradox that comes with omnipotence. omnipotence, following logical guidelines and limits is impossible.

Without omnipotence what is god?"

God, as a physical entity, has already been disproved. Even if God as a physical entity was proven to be true, there would be no point to religion.

It's no use trying to make a debate on wether or not God physically exists.

 

[Byronman]

When did I say that there's an absolute right and absolute wrong? Things do or do not exist.

You said it right there. You are saying that the existence is wrong and that non-existence is right...

but it's completely discrete from what we're discussing here. We're discussing God as an entity.

He is saying God exists in the theists' perception of the world. That He is just a belief and not a physical entity.

 

[adumbrodeus]

How am I misunderstanding his argument? Never once have I said that the "belief" of God doesn't exist. What he's talking about is the entity of God existing in their consciousness, just because the belief also exists.

This is exactly the same crap Yoss pulled.

Ok, good, so you've got it now, which means all is well.

Well, Ross wasn't exactly pulling this, it was a tangent, the "ideas exist" tangent, he recognized the idea as distinct from the entity, unlike riboflavinbob here.


Then all is well.

If you already know God is a belief, what was the point of this thread? How did this get to be 100+ pages? There's no way you can solve anything if you're trying to disprove the existence of God as a physical entity. I thought you people were deeper than just "proving God's physical existence". Of course he doesn't physically exist. If he was a physical entity he would have to abide by the rules of logic. That's why its called a belief, that doesn't have to follow logical rules.

"If god is omnipotent, he has the power to do anything. ANYTHING.

God can create heavy stones.

God can lift heavy stones.

But can god create a stone so heavy? that he himself cannot lift?

Here is an obvious paradox that comes with omnipotence. omnipotence, following logical guidelines and limits is impossible.

Without omnipotence what is god?"

God, as a physical entity, has already been disproved. Even if God as a physical entity was proven to be true, there would be no point to religion.

It's no use trying to make a debate on wether or not God physically exists.

OR...

Our colloquial concept of omniscience is not how omniscience actually functions.

This happens all the time with defining terms for the purpose of mathematics (and logic is mathematics).

He is saying God exists in the theists' perception of the world. That He is just a belief and not a physical entity.

Exactly, discussion of the entity "God" and the belief "God" are fundamentally discrete. The topic at hand discusses the former, not the latter.

 

[Byronman]

OR...

Our colloquial concept of omniscience is not how omniscience actually functions.

This happens all the time with defining terms for the purpose of mathematics (and logic is mathematics).

He is not talking about omniscience but omnipotence

 

[riboflavinbob]

Ok, good, so you've got it now, which means all is well.

Well, Ross wasn't exactly pulling this, it was a tangent, the "ideas exist" tangent, he recognized the idea as distinct from the entity, unlike riboflavinbob here.


Then all is well.




OR...

Our colloquial concept of omniscience is not how omniscience actually functions.

This happens all the time with defining terms for the purpose of mathematics (and logic is mathematics).




Exactly, discussion of the entity "God" and the belief "God" are fundamentally discrete. The topic at hand discusses the former, not the latter.

(btw i said omnipotence not omniscience)

Alright, alright. I understand now. This thread is about the existence of God as a physical entity. Alright, I'm sorry for getting off topic before. How could you be debating on such a simple topic for 112 pages? So this really is one of those threads where people are just ranting about how stupid each others' beliefs are? I'm glad I didn't read any of it. Ok then, if that's the case, go on fighting meaninglessly about who's opinion is better. I don't have anything to say about it anymore (which I'm sure many of you would enjoy). Have fun wasting your time now!

 

[Byronman]

Well if you think about it, your post on page 109 describe HOW someone can believe in God. He said:

if god were to show himself or stop all the atrocities in the world, religion would cease to exist, and there would be no point in faith or hope anymore. That is why it's called faith, it requires no evidence, no proof, but you can still come to the conclusion that your life has meaning and happiness. Doesn't that seem like a much happier existence, to believe and be happy rather than sulk around and waiting for everything to be proven? That, TS, is how anyone can believe in God.

That is HOW, but if we are indeed arguing over the EXISTENCE of God, then we are off topic and there should be a different thread for this argument.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well if you think about it, your post on page 109 describe HOW someone can believe in God. He said:



That is HOW, but if we are indeed arguing over the EXISTENCE of God, then we are off topic and there should be a different thread for this argument.

"How can anyone believe in God" can be, linguistically a query as to the reasoning behind it (and given the context, a call to debate on the issue), or a question of mechanics.


The original poster clarified which of the two possible definitions it was, namely a query as to the reasoning behind it, therefore closing the route of mechanics permanently. Any discussion of the mechanics is therefore, off-topic and only discussions of the reasoning are on-topic.

 

[Byronman]

I apologize but my linguistic skills are not very good. Could you put that in layman's terms for me?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I apologize but my linguistic skills are not very good. Could you put that in layman's terms for me?

Ummm, ok. There were two meanings to the title, and the original post tells us that he meant "a debate on whether it's reasonable to believe in God".

Which is what we are discussing.

 

[Byronman]

Ummm, ok. There were two meanings to the title, and the original post tells us that he meant "a debate on whether it's reasonable to believe in God".

Which is what we are discussing.

But discussing whether it's reasonable to believe in God is still different from whether or not he exists...

 

[adumbrodeus]

But discussing whether it's reasonable to believe in God is still different from whether or not he exists...

It's reasonable to believe in God if there is sufficient evidence that God exists.

Another connection made in the original post, but implied in it being "reasonable". This is because "reasonable" references to the rules of logic, if you can logically prove something exists, it is therefore "reasonable" to believe in it.

Therefore if you can prove he exists, it's reasonable to believe he exists, simple no?