Does God Exist?

Does God exist?

  • A: To my knowledge, God does exist. (I believe that God exists). Theism

    Votes: 8 21.1%

  • B: To my knowledge, God does not exist. (I believe that God does not exist). Atheism.

    Votes: 22 57.9%

  • C: Man cannot arrive at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Therefore, I have not arrived

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • D: I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Nothing else.

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Total voters
    38
L

lixluke

Refined Reinvention
Valued Senior Member
A: To my knowledge, God does exist. (I believe that God exists). Theism.

B: To my knowledge, God does not exist. (I believe that God does not exist). Atheism.

C: Man cannot arrive at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Therefore, I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Agnosticism.

D: I have not arrived at a conclusion about whether or not God exists. Nothing else.7
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clearly the answer is B since there is no good reason to conclude that a god exists (even though lixsluke doesn't specify which god).

Any other answer is completely illogical since no one has ever demonstrated knowledge of the existence of god (they claim this knowledge, but fail utterly and miserably at showing how they arrive at it); man can certainly arrive a conclusion that god doesn't exist based on probability -the universe behaves precisely as we would expect it to if a god didn't exist (Stenger 2007).

Stenger, Victor (2007). God - The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist New York: Prometheus Books
 
Last edited:
lixluke said:
Wrong. Simply concluding that something exists does not mean it exists.
Click to expand...

I agree. Believing doesn't make it true (as the movie The Polar Express claims about Santa Claus). This is, however, the kind of thing Berkeley claimed. Berkeley posited that a tree exists because we can think of it and the moment the tree isn't in someone's mind it no longer exists. This, he posited, was proof of a god, since the universe couldn't exist unless there was some outside entity to hold the universe in its mind.

I always wondered what outside entity held Berkeley's outside entity in its mind... and so on.
 
lixluke said:
Wrong. Simply concluding that something exists does not mean it exists.
Click to expand...

wrong. Concluding that something exists is not believing that something exists. Believing that something exists is living a life with that belief and thus acting in a way that makes that belief true. As a result that belief becomes true.
 
To the best of my knowledge God does not exist. Insufficient evidence precludes a belief in God. It is impossible to ascertain a deity's presence. In all likelihood it will always be this way.
 
B: To my knowledge, God does not exist. (I believe that God does not exist).
Click to expand...

These are not the same thing.

You can believe God doesn't exist while not knowing that God does not exist.
 
James R said:
These are not the same thing.

You can believe God doesn't exist while not knowing that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
draqon said:
wrong. Concluding that something exists is not believing that something exists. Believing that something exists is living a life with that belief and thus acting in a way that makes that belief true. As a result that belief becomes true.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The term "belief" is often misinterpreted. Belief is a conclusion by an individual that something is true. A conclusion that X is true = A belief that X is true. See for yourself.
 
Last edited:
SkinWalker said:
I agree. Believing doesn't make it true (as the movie The Polar Express claims about Santa Claus). This is, however, the kind of thing Berkeley claimed. Berkeley posited that a tree exists because we can think of it and the moment the tree isn't in someone's mind it no longer exists. This, he posited, was proof of a god, since the universe couldn't exist unless there was some outside entity to hold the universe in its mind.
Click to expand...

Why does he propose a tree exists because WE think of it yet the universe existing depends on an OUTSIDE entity???

SkinWalker said:
I always wondered what outside entity held Berkeley's outside entity in its mind... and so on.
Click to expand...

Of course.
1111
 
lixluke:

Usually "knowledge" is defined as "a justified belief".

Thus, you can have belief without knowledge, but not knowledge without belief.

i.e. you can believe in God without knowing he exists, but you can't know he exists and not believe in him.

Similarly, you can believe there is no God without knowing he doesn't exist, but you can't know God doesn't exist without also believing he does not exist.

By the way, looking at your diagram it seems you and I agree with each other on this definition.
 
You need to define what is proof. Eye wittness testimony is good enough for the court room. But I suspect it will not be good enough for this forum. So you have to rule out personal experience and testimony.

So given that rule, there is no proof of the existence of God. There is speculation, there is theory (See Omega Point Theory). Conversely those that claim God does not exist, cannot prove their position either.
 
Eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. An oven caught fire in an apt here, the maintenance woman put it out then a woman across the hall opened her door & saw smoke & flames. What was there for her to see was smoke & her mind trying its best to make sense of things "saw" flames also.
We have little choice but to have a justice system & do the best we can with it. It is quite different for me to accept your word not only for what you think happened to you but also accept your explanation for it.
1111
 
James R said:
lixluke:

Usually "knowledge" is defined as "a justified belief".

Thus, you can have belief without knowledge, but not knowledge without belief.

i.e. you can believe in God without knowing he exists, but you can't know he exists and not believe in him.

Similarly, you can believe there is no God without knowing he doesn't exist, but you can't know God doesn't exist without also believing he does not exist.

By the way, looking at your diagram it seems you and I agree with each other on this definition.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some other meaning for justification, it nothing mroe than a method of arriving at a conclusion that something is true.
Whether knowledge or misconception, the observer must consider all yellow as knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thus, it is impossible to claim belief without claiming knowledge. I think this is clearly laid out in the description of how knowledge works.
 
I know that I have not yet been offered any reason to consider the question of "god's" supposed existence seriously yet.

I believe theists are completely full of it and pulling the concepts out of a handy dark hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top