Does God Exist?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Because as I have pointed out many times now, the burden of proof is on you the believer in a god, because there is no evidence for anybody to justify the belief in such.
I have used the troll in the forest as an example of a claim that nobody should believe without evidence. Do you believe in trolls ? Is it not reasonable to expect that if I make such a claim I can provide evidence ?
I have no issue with your belief. But if you choose to debate the merits of the reason for your choice ( that you believe in god ) than surely you can provide some evidence to justify your belief.
It sounds as though you have spent very little time questioning your belief and much time accepting what you have been told.
The general excuse for believers to state their belief is only based on one thing -faith. Faith is as intangible a reason to believe, and atheism is, to not believe. Both are thought only, nothing tangible exists to support either option. BUT, I would add that there is more "proof" for there NOT to be a god, than to believe that there is.
Science proves there is no god as such. Science does not rule out superior beings though. But there is a difference. A race, somewhere in the universe, could easily have visited earth in the past and "triggered" evolution. There is evidence of this dotted around the planet but no "proof". Just as there is absolutely no proof that this god of religious people exists.
Science proves there is no god as such. Science does not rule out superior beings though. But there is a difference. A race, somewhere in the universe, could easily have visited earth in the past and "triggered" evolution. There is evidence of this dotted around the planet but no "proof". Just as there is absolutely no proof that this god of religious people exists.
jpappl
But if you choose to debate the merits of reason for your choice (that all claims of knowledge can be empirically defined) than surely you can provide some evidence to justify your belief.
:shrug:
so where is your evidence that empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge, eh?
If I have some ideological chip on my shoulder that prevents me from even going to the forest, there are other issues that come to hand before the call of evidence can be confirmed or disputed
I have no issue with your beliefs either.
But if you choose to debate the merits of reason for your choice (that all claims of knowledge can be empirically defined) than surely you can provide some evidence to justify your belief.
Once again, regardless of the issue of knowledge under discussion, if you think you can jump to issues of evidence without analyzing issues of qualification that go with it, it is you who is not investigating the claim properly. Ironically, not even empirical claims function like that.
:shrug:
Ok so let's get this straight.
(according to you) there is no evidence for or against god, yet science proves there is no god
:m:
LG,
I never said that you did. You are making an extrodinary claim that has no evidence and has never had any evidence to justify the belief. If you want to believe it, no problem but trying to make the claim that God exists to those like myself who don't believe you because we have found nothing to justify such a belief requires me to ask for evidence.
Do you believe in trolls ?
Doesn't even make sense.
No problem. With regards to the idea of a God(s), or Trolls or anything else which would be an extrodinary claim of this nature. There is no evidence that justifies such a belief. Period. My evidence is the lack of evidence.
Do you believe in trolls ? if not. Why. Could it be because there is no evidence for trolls.
Do you believe in Flying, fire breathing dragons ? Why, could it be because there is no evidence for flying, fire breathing dragons.
Meaningless. You are chasing your tail. You have no evidence and just believe. You are making a pure leap of faith.
You have no knowledge of god, you don't know any better than myself or anyone else. Because of that I don't have issues with people who believe in a god as long as they don't claim to know. In other words, I don't have issues with those who believe, but I do with those who are religious. Who claim to KNOW the path, the only one.
I never said that you did. You are making an extrodinary claim that has no evidence and has never had any evidence to justify the belief. If you want to believe it, no problem but trying to make the claim that God exists to those like myself who don't believe you because we have found nothing to justify such a belief requires me to ask for evidence.
Do you believe in trolls ?
Doesn't even make sense.
No problem. With regards to the idea of a God(s), or Trolls or anything else which would be an extrodinary claim of this nature. There is no evidence that justifies such a belief. Period. My evidence is the lack of evidence.
Do you believe in trolls ? if not. Why. Could it be because there is no evidence for trolls.
Do you believe in Flying, fire breathing dragons ? Why, could it be because there is no evidence for flying, fire breathing dragons.
Meaningless. You are chasing your tail. You have no evidence and just believe. You are making a pure leap of faith.
You have no knowledge of god, you don't know any better than myself or anyone else. Because of that I don't have issues with people who believe in a god as long as they don't claim to know. In other words, I don't have issues with those who believe, but I do with those who are religious. Who claim to KNOW the path, the only one.
Jpappl
“
its how all claims of knowledge work
Its got nothing to do with belief
Its got everything to do with correct application
Even empiricism agrees with that
:shrug:
“
there's no (classical) empirical evidence, .... but then it's not a (classical) empirical claim ....
if you believe you can determine the merit of a claim that isn't empirical with empirical measures, you would have better luck measuring distance with a thermometer
if a troll lives in the forest and if I don't go to the forest not much will ensue except a lot of hot air
as long as you refrain from meeting the demands to validate the claim, what other option would you expect?
If they live in the forest and I don't go to the forest for whatever reason, then that would kind of curtail any investigation on the subject
If it was required that I look skywards to see them yet I refused, once again we land in the default position of ignorance.
nonsense
its how all claims of knowledge work
Its got nothing to do with belief
Its got everything to do with correct application
Even empiricism agrees with that
:shrug:
You have nothing.
Again, nothing.
Again claiming that if only I would open my eyes I would be enlightened.
More of the same. If only I would seek god I would believe.
Would you look if it dump a giant load of crap on you, probably not eh !
No, Wrong. Knowledge isn't arrived at by pure leaps of faith. In fact, faith has nothing to do with it.
We know gravity exists because we can test it over and over again.
So since it has nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with application. Than the result of such application should be knowledge. So you are claiming knowledge. You claim to know the path and the truth.
So enlighten me with your evidence. Assume I want to believe, but have no reason to believe due to the lack of evidence.
jppapl
“
“
car mechanics?
dental nurses?
janitors?
or astrophysicists?
.... and furthermore, why?
Assume that I believe all physicists are full of shit and that anything ever written by one is also equally full of shit.
What can you say or do about the nature of an electron that doesn't draw this response from me - "You are full of shit"
:shrug:
nothing empirical
“
Much like measuring distance with a thermometer, you have nothing ....
“
actually the claim is that you have to meet the prerequisites before coming to issues of in/validating an evidential claim - if you want to reject all claims of knowledge that are more difficult to ascertain than visiting a forest you have sufficient means to reject over 99% of all claims made in the field of science, philosophy, art and religion ....
it's more a case if only you would believe that there is a means of applying yourself to seek god you could begin
on the contrary, it is you who seems to have vast reserves of denying the prerequisites of a claim while simultaneously driving home your -ahem- conclusions on the topic
and who exactly does the testing of gravity?
car mechanics?
dental nurses?
janitors?
or astrophysicists?
.... and furthermore, why?
Assume that you are a physicist and I am a high school drop out.
Assume that I believe all physicists are full of shit and that anything ever written by one is also equally full of shit.
What can you say or do about the nature of an electron that doesn't draw this response from me - "You are full of shit"
:shrug:
I love watching you guys try and talk some sense into LG.
I eventually gave up and put him on my ignore list. It's unreal how sane SciForums became after I did that.
Under normal circumstances I would say it is unfair to prevent another human being from airing his or her concerns. However, I eventually realized that many good ideas presented by a very diverse crowd of SF members were being drowned out by the rantings of just a select few on these forums who obvious pay more mind to post counts than logic. So my original ethical stance was clearly one of defending an idiot with a loudspeaker, rather than the proper ideal of pulling the plug to tend to the whispering masses.
I think I made the right choice.
I eventually gave up and put him on my ignore list. It's unreal how sane SciForums became after I did that.
Under normal circumstances I would say it is unfair to prevent another human being from airing his or her concerns. However, I eventually realized that many good ideas presented by a very diverse crowd of SF members were being drowned out by the rantings of just a select few on these forums who obvious pay more mind to post counts than logic. So my original ethical stance was clearly one of defending an idiot with a loudspeaker, rather than the proper ideal of pulling the plug to tend to the whispering masses.
I think I made the right choice.
If you think such an entity exists, go ahead and define it.
LG,
Only you would measure distance with a thermometer.
Well you are including philosophy, art and religion in with science. You are truly confused.
It's done daily. And all test it and have to live with it.
Why ? Are you kidding me.
I understand your frustration. Science has the ability to prove with evidence that the laws of physics apply. They are repeatable. They are testable.
You belief in god has none of that and you desperately wish it did so that you would have something concrete to base it on, but you don't. So you have to have faith and faith only. Pure leap of faith. If you had any evidence you would present it. Proudly and often, you would surely create a shrine around it.
At this point you have nothing and I believe but don't know that you ever will, I am betting against it because I see no justification, no evidence for such a belief.
Swivel,
I agree for the most part. I go back and forth between trying and realizing how futile it is. Do we allow the nonsense to vaporize or confront it. One gives some credence to the insanity and the other confronts it. Neither seem to work at solving the issue.
Only you would measure distance with a thermometer.
Well you are including philosophy, art and religion in with science. You are truly confused.
It's done daily. And all test it and have to live with it.
Why ? Are you kidding me.
I understand your frustration. Science has the ability to prove with evidence that the laws of physics apply. They are repeatable. They are testable.
You belief in god has none of that and you desperately wish it did so that you would have something concrete to base it on, but you don't. So you have to have faith and faith only. Pure leap of faith. If you had any evidence you would present it. Proudly and often, you would surely create a shrine around it.
At this point you have nothing and I believe but don't know that you ever will, I am betting against it because I see no justification, no evidence for such a belief.
Swivel,
I agree for the most part. I go back and forth between trying and realizing how futile it is. Do we allow the nonsense to vaporize or confront it. One gives some credence to the insanity and the other confronts it. Neither seem to work at solving the issue.
Well I think you have to believe in something eternal whether or not you believe in God or not.
God is a simple, reasonable and logical conclusion to the infinite question of begining that science could never answer. You either believe that God is infinite and the origin of all that is...or you believe that the univserse is infinite in time having no begining nor an end and thus it's own creator.
But either way you have to answer the question of infinity.
The knowledge we have today seems to make a direct implication that there was an intelligent designer.
If not..then you also believe in a improbable series of coicidences that have brought us and the universe to this precise point and balance.
You don't have to believe in anything. You only have 2 choices:
1. Either you conclude X is true.
or
2. You have not arrived at a conclusion.
There is not other choice. And choice #1 is not a necessity.
Saquist,
The question of where it all started and how it all ends is valid. However, explain a specific as to how there is a direct implication of an intelligent designer.
So would you suggest that there is no life elsewhere in the universe ?
Do you believe that you know the singular path to the one god ?
The question of where it all started and how it all ends is valid. However, explain a specific as to how there is a direct implication of an intelligent designer.
So would you suggest that there is no life elsewhere in the universe ?
Do you believe that you know the singular path to the one god ?
Jpappl
will the irony never end ?
:shrug:
What is frustrating is that you see it fit to drop this general principle when investigating theistic claims.
on the contrary, it is you who sees it fit to reject a claim that isn't empirical by empirical means ...
will the irony never end ?
If you've never considered the philosophical foundations of science I guess it is equally plausible that you have never heard of newton ....
:shrug:
The point is that physics, since it involves claims of knowledge, rest its evidential claims on persons who have met very specific qualifications.
What is frustrating is that you see it fit to drop this general principle when investigating theistic claims.
Much like the high school drop out scenario outlined above, you haven't even begun to investigate the issue ... what to speak of your speculations on what others might have investigated ...
If you think you approach issues of evidence without approaching issues of qualification you are no better than a high school drop out