Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[Trek]

The sad part is "mystery" covers so many unsolvable problems with religion. Low standards regarding evidence should make one afraid to go on trial for their life.

What do you mean by evidence?
What is it about the evidence I posted earlier that you don’t agree with?
And more importantly, why?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've had this debate before, and "that way lies madness." I made an observation. You're free to observe it.

 

[Trek]

I've had this debate before, and "that way lies madness." I made an observation. You're free to observe it.

That’s all well and good.
But what do you mean by God?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"God", an imaginary power that helps some people from making their own decisions.

 

[Trek]

"God", an imaginary power that helps some people from making their own decisions.

So why make this silly thread?

 

[Pinball1970]

So why make this silly thread?

Asking for evidence of something is not silly, believing in something without it, is.

 

[Pinball1970]

He asked for proof..

Evidence actually

Nothing can be proven outside of mathematics.

It is fine, we settle for the lesser proof, say like the earth is an oblate spheroid proof.

I addressed that multiple times.

With "Cells cannot come from goo" and a wiki link. Good work.

Now it’s my turn to ask questions.

Then start a new damn thread. You failed in this one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Regardless, you still have to know something about why you believe something does not exists.

No you don't. There are literally an infinite number of things you, personally, don't believe in.

“I don’t believe the Gliptz exists because…”
“I don’t believe in the Gliptz because…”

Your example is perfect. You don't believe in the Gliptz because there is no reason to, unless there is a reason to. That is the default state of humans, including you.

My example was the Great Green Arkleseizure. I am pretty sure you aren't about to go exploring for evidence in case you are inadvertently missing the opportunity to believe in something.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You haven't met my hillbilly cousins. Some of my relatives are snake handlers, most just a little bit better. They believe in anything convenient, and ignore the bits that aren't. That's like hypocrisy without the good aspects.

 

[Sarkus]

I can’t say anything about a Gliptz because I do not know what one is, so I can neither believe or lack belief. I can’t even be agnostic unless I have at least a known and understood definition.

If you do not have the positive belief that something (X) exists then, by definition, you lack that positive belief that X exists. Where X is God, this is sufficient for some to use the label "atheist".
Some might require one to have at least thought about X, even if only to conclude that they are not otherwise aware of it, or find a definition meaningless etc. This is to distinguish, for example, someone who has concluded that they lack belief in X, from someone who has yet to give it any thought.
So, no, you don't necessarily need a known and understood definition to lack belief that the thing exists. You don't know what a Gliptz is, so you can not say that you have a positive belief that a Gliptz exists, can you. True, you also can not say that a Glipitz does not exist. But an atheist, at least as commonly understood here, only requires the former, not the latter.

Agnosticism is a different position, about what is known, or the knowability, of the subject matter.
If you don't have a meaningful definition of something then that in itself is sufficient for some to consider themselves necessarily agnostic on the matter. They couldn't go so far as to say that Glipitz are an unknowable phenomenon precisely because they, personally, don't know what is meant by the term. But in so far as they deem themselves to lack any knowledge of Glipitz, even as far as a meaningful definition, is surely sufficient to say "I don't know...".

Having a definition allows me to decide whether or not a Gliptz exist, and if asked why I lack a belief, I would be able to explain based on my definition/understanding. I would not need to know your definition unless it differed from mine.

Sure, but until you decide that they do exist, you necessarily lack belief that they do, right?

So my question (what evidence would convince you about the reality of God?) is legitimate because all I hear is “lack of evidence” with regards God.

To me "God" is a meaningless concept, akin to asking what happened before time began.
I therefore lack belief that God exists - i.e. an atheist (as I have at least considered the position) - and I also can not say what evidence would convince me. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't exist. I don't know, precisely because I find God to be a meaningless concept. I am therefore agnostic. I also consider God to be unknowable, precisely because I think it a meaningless concept.

If you know there is a lack of evidence, despite evidences all over the internet which you reject, it signifies that you would know what the evidence would be, if it were to show up. All I’m doing is asking what it would be because at this point I have no clue what you mean by God.

It depends on what you want to call "evidence". For example, an observation could be "evidence" for 2 competing theories, if it fits both. There is plenty of such evidence - so much that it actually encapsulates existence itself.
But if you mean "evidence" as in "supports the concept of God while not also supporting the non-God theory" then I am not aware of any evidence. Are you?

What do you think “belief” is?
Do you think you can believe in anything without having some knowledge or understanding of that thing?

One can not have a positive belief (e.g. "I believe that...") without some understanding of what it is you are asserting.
One can lack that positive belief without needing to have any understanding of it.

Regardless, you still have to know something about why you believe something does not exists.

“I don’t believe the Gliptz exists because…”
“I don’t believe in the Gliptz because…”
The former can be the reason for the latter, but for it to be rational you have to have some knowledge of said Gliptz.

Both of these can be answered with "... because I don't know what a Gliptz is/means". That is, surely, the rational position to take when you don't know what is being discussed?

All that means is that you lack belief in the word God.
I’m asking about the meaning of the word.
What do you think God is, why you lean toward atheism or agnosticism?

No, we are talking about the concept itself, not the label of the concept. Noone is suggesting belief or lack of belief in a word but in the concept that the word represents.

I think God is a meaningless concept. Explain to me why it isn't?
Until then, this is the reason I am both atheist and agnostic.

 

[Trek]

Evidence actually

He asked for proof.
Read the damn thread title

With "Cells cannot come from goo" and a wiki link. Good work.

Correct.
Now answer my questions.

Then start a new damn thread. You failed in this one.

My whole point is that you have no clue whether or not I have failed this one.

 

[Trek]

Your example is perfect. You don't believe in the Gliptz because there is no reason to, unless there is a reason to. That is the default state of humans, including you.

Ok. So now we’re getting somewhere.
You think a person can just believe something, or believe in something because they want to.
That is where you are wrong. You have to know something about the object of belief, even if it is on faith. Otherwise it is just an assertion.

My example was the Great Green Arkleseizure. I am pretty sure you aren't about to go exploring for evidence in case you are inadvertently missing the opportunity to believe in something.

Wtf are you talking about?

No you don't. There are literally an infinite number of things you, personally, don't believe in.

Name one, and I’ll tell you why I don’t believe in it.

 

[Pinball1970]

He asked for proof

Which you could not provide, not the mathematical type, the common speech type.
It was I that asked you for evidence instead, you failed there too.

 

[Pinball1970]

My whole point is that you have no clue whether or not I have failed this one.

Well yes I do, you couldn't answer, that's a fail right there.

Do you need me to define "fail?"

 

[billvon]

Asking for evidence of something is not silly, believing in something without it, is.

You know, if he believes in God, or Allah, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, and it makes his life better - it's not all that silly.

I know a few Christians who do not (for example) steal because it's against their religion. If that's what it takes them to have morality - a cosmic taskmaster who will see that and send them to Hell - then it's both good for them and for the rest of society.

So it doesn't really bother me what people believe, as long as it is 1) good for them and 2) isn't causing them to do anything bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

You think a person can just believe something, or believe in something because they want to.

Many people do, yes.

You have to know something about the object of belief, even if it is on faith.

Contradiction in terms: if it is "taken on faith" then it is not "known".

Wtf are you talking about?

Exactly my point.

You have no idea what the Great Green Arkleseizure is. And you're not about to go believing it without good reason.
Exactly like your Gliptz.

Your default state, like everyone else's, is not to believe in the infinite number of possible things for which you have no evidence.

Name one, and I’ll tell you why I don’t believe in it.

Two already: your Gliptz, my GGA.

 

[DaveC426913]

My whole point is that you have no clue whether or not I have failed this one.

You definitely have.

If you need to keep litigating about the use of the word "proof" in the title, we'll let you off easy. Give us evidence and let us decide if it's proof. Even if we don't find it "proof", you can still provide it and we can decide if it is objectively evidence enough to convince us.

You can tell us what we should be looking for to see God. Alas, by post 697, you still have not.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know, if he believes in God, or Allah, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, or whatever, and it makes his life better - it's not all that silly.

You don't see the problem there?

 

[James R]

Trek:

I already know what to expect from the type of atheists that frequent in religious threads. Maybe y’all should tone down in the sensitivity. You may even learn something

I take it that the content of my post #587 above is too challenging for you.

I asked you some questions that you either can't answer or that you don't want to face.

In response to my honesty, you have decided to stonewall.

Your manner of response speaks volumes about both your personal integrity and also, presumably, the values that your religion teaches you.

Keep hiding under your rock, then, Trek. It has been clear from the start that you lack the intellectual courage to face the hard questions with honesty and a clear head. You're an angry man with a hefty chip on his shoulder who is clearly deeply mired in dogma.

 

[James R]

Tell me what you actually know regarding the myth of the first cell

How do you think the first cell came about, Trek?

The fact is, you have your own mythology about that, don't you?

So, all the while that you lash out weakly against science, you're also being an enormous hypocrite.

The idea of the cell being a product of a creator is way more plausible than the notion of goo or ocean (you decide) randomly putting all the bits I mentioned together.

What makes ideas about abiogenesis implausible, specifically?

Have you even thought about this?