All the atheists need to stfu. I want to hear what the theists have to say(cause it's gonna be so surprising 
).
).
how would you live if God doesn't exist?
- Thread starter scorpius
- Start date
How would gods live if I didn't exist?
I am, by taking into concideration what benefits others, and acting accordingly. In a way I guess you could say it's an equivilant to not sinning (though I don't believe in sin). Anyway most of those actions are a part of life regaurdless of your religion. We're just domesticated animals after all.
(Q),
At last.
You were expecting more?
It would be silly if it wasn't. Don't you agree?
"Indoctrination into a religion" has nothing to do with the question.
It was suggested that my belief (in God), was a belief in "absurdity".
jan.
At last.
You were expecting more?
It would be silly if it wasn't. Don't you agree?
"Indoctrination into a religion" has nothing to do with the question.
It was suggested that my belief (in God), was a belief in "absurdity".
jan.
Brilliant.
And certainly a much more relevant question.
Wouldn't it go without saying that to hold an absurd belief, indoctrination would be an effective means of effecting this?
I find that the OP is flawed in that it assumes that god does in fact exist.
And so, being flawed, I cannot answer the question as such.
I can say this however: I do live, and I live well.
glaucon,
That goes without saying, but so is a non-absurd belief.
In short there is no getting away from indoctrination, unless you isolate yourself.
It is a "question for theists", people who have a belief in God.
How does it assume "as fact" that God exists?
You mean you can't answer this question effectively, because it is not intended for you. Evidently.
jan.
That goes without saying, but so is a non-absurd belief.
In short there is no getting away from indoctrination, unless you isolate yourself.
It is a "question for theists", people who have a belief in God.
How does it assume "as fact" that God exists?
You mean you can't answer this question effectively, because it is not intended for you. Evidently.
jan.
Fair enough. In one way or another, the vast majority of our beliefs are contingent upon some form of instruction. However, my point was that to hold, and maintain an absurd belief, one must be indoctrinated (actively).
Ah. Fair enough then.
It assumes god exists because it's posing a 'hypothetical' question such that it doesn't.
No, I mean that, given the exact wording of the question, I 'would' live just as I do.
I see your point regarding the intended audience, but this is a public forum...
glaucon,
I wasn't implying that you shouldn't answer, sorry if I gave that
impression.
jan.
I wasn't implying that you shouldn't answer, sorry if I gave that
impression.
jan.
A belief in gods IS a belief in 'absurdity,' and in most cases was probably a result of childhood indoctrination.
The belief itself is validated because you do believe, we can see that. The belief has nothing to do with the validity of gods existence.
(Q),
Why is belief in "God" absurd?
Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.
How do you know?
Do you know what God's existence means?
Or are you waiting for that old grey bloke depicted by the Greeks, as God, to
to turn up?
jan.
Why is belief in "God" absurd?
Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.
How do you know?
Do you know what God's existence means?
Or are you waiting for that old grey bloke depicted by the Greeks, as God, to
to turn up?
jan.
By this flawed logic anything can be validated. By the way, did you know pigs can fly? My claim is, I believe pigs can fly, not that I know pigs can fly. Validation of my claim is confirmed when I, the claimant, confirms it.
Just because your claim exists and is a confirmed doesn't mean it's validated. Validated means to be proven true, as in the subject matter of the claim is validated (it's proven true). Proving that you made a claim is just smoke and mirrors to the real issue.
Ok, yes, you are making a valid claim. But arguing that you are, when the subject matter is in question (of the claim) is just redirection. It is a rhetorical argument, and makes the claim's subject matter appear to have more credence. Everything anyone says is a valid claim (as in anyone is allowed to have a belief), so it is pointless to argue it.
Here's what it all boils down to: No one knows if God exists or not, but it is improbable. If no one could deny the existence of God, one would not have to choose to have faith.
There is no scripture to my knowledge that says this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is beside the point.
The point was that much of the supernatural has been proven by scientific theory. Much of religion has been proven as the product of culture and philosophy of man because of the culture.
The only argument you have is that science and philosophy are the studies of God's universal laws, so man is merely uncovering God's selected mysteries that God's okay with revealing.
Belief in the invisible and undetectable is what is repeated over and over, Jan. That's what religion entails, the ongoing repetition reaffirming the belief. Hence, theists like yourself continuously state, "God exists" while others respond, "That's absurd."
Repeating over and over that "God exists" doesn't make it so, either.
I'm waiting for anything at all that resembles anything YOU or any other theist claims about gods, Jan. Nothing to date has surfaced, as yet.
How many more centuries are you theists going to take to demonstrate your gods exist?
(Q),
As I suspected. "I can't see God, therefore God does not exist. Your only other option is, "I don't believe in God, because I don't.
I hope so.
The former generally has reason, the latter reacts in that way because there is no reason, or argument to support their illogical, and irrational belief.
LOL!!
But, repeating, or not, does make my ACTUAL claim, the one you have trouble settling with, so.
So far, you are wrong, and I am right.
That would make no difference to you, as you can't actually see God.
From your perspective, none. Because you can't actually see him, or you won't believe, because, you won't.
jan.
As I suspected. "I can't see God, therefore God does not exist. Your only other option is, "I don't believe in God, because I don't.
I hope so.
The former generally has reason, the latter reacts in that way because there is no reason, or argument to support their illogical, and irrational belief.
LOL!!
But, repeating, or not, does make my ACTUAL claim, the one you have trouble settling with, so.
So far, you are wrong, and I am right.
That would make no difference to you, as you can't actually see God.
From your perspective, none. Because you can't actually see him, or you won't believe, because, you won't.
jan.
jayleew,
How exactly is "this" logic flawed?
A confused statement.
I didn't say God exists, I said "I believe God exists. Furthermore I did not make that claim in an attempt to prove to you, or anyone else that God actually exists.
The truth is, I did make a claim, and my claim is validated. Why can't you understand this?
Again, I am not attempting to prove God exists. My attempt was to provide
reasons as to why I believe the way I do. And find out if there are any reason, outside of objective observation, and personal choice, why someone would believe God doesn't exist.
The subject matter is, reason for belief, or not, of God.
It's not a rhetorical argument, it wasn't even intended as an argument.
It was intended as a kick start for discussion about the reasons people believe God does not exist.
Why is it improbable?
My point is, why would you deny God?
Even if currently there is no evidence, it doesn't mean that God does not exist.
My point is, you cannot really attribute that pre-scientific statement as a reason why someone would invent God. Plus, scriptures, the source of understanding God, and the point of religion, does not necessarily lead one to
come to that conclusion, without one making ones own conclusion.
Examples?
But not the source.
jan.
How exactly is "this" logic flawed?
A confused statement.
I didn't say God exists, I said "I believe God exists. Furthermore I did not make that claim in an attempt to prove to you, or anyone else that God actually exists.
The truth is, I did make a claim, and my claim is validated. Why can't you understand this?
Again, I am not attempting to prove God exists. My attempt was to provide
reasons as to why I believe the way I do. And find out if there are any reason, outside of objective observation, and personal choice, why someone would believe God doesn't exist.
The subject matter is, reason for belief, or not, of God.
It's not a rhetorical argument, it wasn't even intended as an argument.
It was intended as a kick start for discussion about the reasons people believe God does not exist.
Why is it improbable?
My point is, why would you deny God?
Even if currently there is no evidence, it doesn't mean that God does not exist.
My point is, you cannot really attribute that pre-scientific statement as a reason why someone would invent God. Plus, scriptures, the source of understanding God, and the point of religion, does not necessarily lead one to
come to that conclusion, without one making ones own conclusion.
Examples?
But not the source.
jan.
The only option and reasoning you've ever presented was "I believe God exists" - hence you'll only hear the same response. If you ever decide to attempt more claims for your belief, those will be responded to in kind.
The ball's in your court.
As a believer, you clearly do believe the former has reason, but it doesn't, it has no reason, no logic and no rationale. It's merely a statement of belief.
GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
It is a claim from blind faith and is worthless. And, I don't doubt that you believe you're right.
Now, you're making another claim, that people can't see God. Clearly, it's another claim from the position of blind faith and is worthless. How do you know people can't see God? Are you claiming that as fact?
And there you have the entire crux of a worthless argument; I won't believe because I won't. Hilarious, Jan.
To say the majority of the world, the majority of the time, throughout history and ancient history, are classed as "believers". Can you explain how you have arrived at your conclusion.
Thanks in advance
jan.
Why is the God's existence improbable? It is for the same reason Frodo Baggin's existence is improbable. What are the things that make God's existence more probable than any fairy tale?
I believe there are none. If you believe there are facts in the matter, feel free to share.
The moon.
Lightning.
Rain.
Wind.
Fire.
Volcanos.
Comets.
This is just a few things that were supernatural things before we unlocked the secrets of them.
I know, I was too. Keep trying. I was in your shoes when I first came to sciforums years ago. All my theist arguments I believed were good and challenging.... All the things I learned from the Bible, theologians, and apologeticists, were my ammunition. I was very strong in the faith. What I thought was God got me through a lot of difficult trials in life. The idea of God was my crutch, it kept me sane. I could lean on it no matter what.
The thing is, when real life knocks, you must answer. You must come to terms with what you believe because you have been taught, and things you believe because you have tried. The answers are everywhere, we just have to keep looking and stumbling upon.
Keep fighting for the truth, whatever that means to you.
jayleew,
That is soooo condescending.
In another thread you mentioned the reason you came to sciforums was to
teach and show people the truth. I think we can safely describe that as arrogance.
But here you are, other than a different world view, the same person.
And the really great thing about your statement is that it is bang in line with
the theme of the thread.
What did you have faith in?
"Real life" is. Warts and all. It doesn't come-a-knocking.
Who says I believe in God because I taught? It is impolite to say the least, to judge everybody by your own experience and standards.
You now have an oppotunity to understand something from a different perspective, but you deny it, because you believe I am wrong, even though you are incapable or unwilling to to show why?
How is this different to when you were Christian?
More importantly, what does it mean to you?
jan.
That is soooo condescending.
In another thread you mentioned the reason you came to sciforums was to
teach and show people the truth. I think we can safely describe that as arrogance.
But here you are, other than a different world view, the same person.
And the really great thing about your statement is that it is bang in line with
the theme of the thread.
What did you have faith in?
"Real life" is. Warts and all. It doesn't come-a-knocking.
Who says I believe in God because I taught? It is impolite to say the least, to judge everybody by your own experience and standards.
You now have an oppotunity to understand something from a different perspective, but you deny it, because you believe I am wrong, even though you are incapable or unwilling to to show why?
How is this different to when you were Christian?
More importantly, what does it mean to you?
jan.
So, what you are saying is that mankind has believed in god consistently since the beginning.
Is this reason enough to keep on believing?
I say no. In the case of me, I just kept on the belief of my parents, who kept the belief of their parents...and so on...
Pair that with the society I grew up with, my character, and my search for the truth. Then, factor in the Bible. This made me want to learn more about the Bible and Christianity. I wanted to be the best example I could be. I studied the Bible. I read about how the heroes believed. Their faith was perfect. They were not perfect people, but their faith was amazing. I wanted to be like that. So, the only way was to transform. I had to become real and not fake, because they were modeled as real people with real beliefs. I am honest with myself now, and the truth was that I had too many questions about God to believe my ancestors, who were not honest by nature. So, just like the heroes in the Bible who did not know god from the beginning (like Abraham), I am waiting for god to show up. This way, I will believe because God is real, not because I was taught God is real.
So, to say that we should believe in a god because the majority of the people for the majority of the time believe, is insufficient. It is living a lie.