By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

 

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375
metroidking on 30 January 2016
SlayerRondo said:
metroidking said:
okay there is enough evidence to support the possibility that god exists, due to the means of stuff that is not explained by science for example how did the earth get here yea yea yea I know big bang theory? but what triggered the big bang? scientifically it doesnt make sense from something to be created from nothing, so where did space come from, how does the sun exist? then there is other stuff that science cant explain demon possession for one and people say this could be hallucinations? schizophrenia but that doesnt explain how an exorcism frees someone from demons, that scientifically doesnt make sense and ive seen an exorcism first hand and it is by far the most scariest shit i have ever seen. Then other stuff like miraculous healings people being healed e.g blind people seeing, deaf people hearing, people with paralysis being able to walk...hell I watched one of my X girlfriends who had carpel tunnel get healed right in front of me! all of this stuff science cant explain, hence the supernatural element. God cant be disproved or proved therefore these debates are pointless. Its cool to not believe what someone else believes to disprove that god exists completely when there is no evidence to support that is just ignorant.

If you dont believe in god dont view less of people who do and vice versa cause nothing can be proved absolutely on this subject.

Thats my piece.

Science, study using the scientific method,  has not been claimed to have all the answers to the questions we currently have but when it doesnt have an answer it does not make one up. Someone saying "I don't know the answer" does not mean they have to respect someone else making one up.

And while science has not, and may not be able to, figure out what caused the big bang in the first place does not mean you can attribute the big bang to god. The argument that something cannot come from nothing applies equally to the idea of a god as anything else. If you then claim that god lies outside of known science then people could respond that any number of unknown events may lay outside of science that could cause something from nothing and that we simply don't know what it is.

Your anecdotal example of demon possession is also not convincing. and while some people may recover for unknown reasons for conditions or illness this simply means there is more for science to find out. Science does not currently hold all the answers but has proven time and time again to be the best method for determining the causes and cures for physical and mental ailments.

Things like thunder and lightning used to be considered the work of god until we were able to determine the causes of these natural events through scientific study. Your god seems to be an excuse for all the things we don't currently know and I wonder what you will do when you start to run out of questions science does not yet have the answer to.

Also there is absolutely no need to disprove that a god exist as people have yet to provide any evidence that dod does exist. You should not go around believing anything until someone disproves it to you as you have things backwards.

I do agree that people who are religious should not be looked down on for that fact alone given that most people do not pick their religion but have it drilled into their heads as children and become indoctrinated into the faith.

I agree that science is the best method for determining causes and cures to illness and mental ailments. I never said it wasnt.

Thats right, god is my excuse for all things I dont currently understand and it seems to only make the most sense in the interim until science proves otherwise which I highly doubt that it ever will.  God comes down to a belief thing you believe he exists or you dont and either way is fine. I kind of believe both science and the supernatural balance out life's equilibrium. When we lean to much either way thats when we get problems on both sides. 

Im open to being convinced that there isnt a god or at least some sort of supernatural spiritual realm but im yet to be convinced, in my mind there are to many supernatural occurences on a day by day basis that science is YET to have an explanation for. I will continue to believe that until I see compelling evidence that he/it doesnt.

But I certaintly dont think that there is an explanation for everything via science either now or hundreds of years in the future but hey thats my view each to there own I say.





Around the Network
RadiantDanceMachine on 30 January 2016
sabvre42 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

This is a wonderful example of dishonesty. Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted.

The burden of proof lies with any claim maker. If the atheist is of the positive variety, i.e. embraces the claim "No gods exist" then indeed they do have a burden. However, if the atheist is of the negative variety, i.e. does not make any claims merely does not embrace the claim "God(s) exist" (more commonly known as agnostic...wrongly) then there is no burden.

It requires no faith to believe that the Universe is infinite. You've even admitted to the facts which lead to that adbuctive inference...those being the expansion of the Universe (indeed, at a rate faster than the speed of light), as well as the fact that the Universe is already much larger than what we can observe.

Furthermore, what does the expansion of the Universe have anything to do with atheism? You seem to have related completely unrelated things here.

What is a belief in "nothing"? That isn't even a coherent sentence to me and certainly has nothing to do with atheism (again).

 Indeed, conservation of energy is preserved...and violated by the notion that a magical wizard manifested it into existence out of nothing. This is contrary to everything we know about physics and philosophy for that matter. Creatio ex nihilo is thought to be logically impossible in addition to being physically (nomologically) impossible. I trust you're aware that physicists do not believe that the Universe is a creatio ex nihilo event, but I can expound if necessary.

Causality is a principle that applies temporally, however since time is thought not to have always been one cannot really comment about a contingency on causality when referencing the Universe itself. This is a abstraction problem on your behalf.

No burden here, as I am not a positive atheist. Indeed it's a position which one could say is nearly as ridiculous as the theistic claim.

 

There is no such thing as an aegnostic aethist. You are simply an aegnostic with aethist tendancies. The term "aegnostic aethiest" is an oxymoron. 

I have no qualm against aegnostics. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. My problem is with the person that claims to be an aethiest and therefore belives themselves intellectual superior (cause... reasons). The whole reason for this tread being created is narcissm. "I believe I am smarter than anyone who could believe in some *myth*". The fact is -- you need to understand that its not as binary as you think it to be.

The largest problem I have with the mainstream "aethiest" is that they assume god is either a sentient being - or nothing. God is a concept that the judiac religions personified.

Its kinda ironic how you reference casaulity only applying to our universe in our frame of reference -- but yet the concept of god is flawed for the same reason? Awefully hippocritical isn't it?  

Definitions are arbitrary. So your contention may be true for the definitions you hold for agnostic, atheism, but certainly not true for what I do. I was very careful with offering my definitions so you could understand. Instead you ignored them, pretended definitions are not arbitrary and asserted that THE definition is [X].

That's quite the assertion about my thread and myself. Have any supporting reasons for it? (*chuckles*)

Everything is binary. A proposition is either true or false. This is really fundamental to logic...you know it by the law of the excluded middle term. 

If you can show me where I claimed that the concept of god is flawed, I'd be happy to address it. However, knowing that I made no such claim, I doubt there is anything to address.

=)



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:

It is my position that no amount of subjective evidence would be sufficient to prove a claim. 

Since subjective evidence is mere opinion, it serves no function in matters of truth. For example, suppose I claim to have seen Bigfoot. Someone else makes the same proclamation. So on and so forth...would this be convincing to anybody? I should hope not.  The reason for this is because the subject is unable to self-confirm his or her experiences. The subject can be mistaken, can hallucinate, can have invalid sensory interpretation. 

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

Now, can anyone think of objective evidence for the existence of God? If so, please share it. I would be supremely interested in it.

EDIT: Can we stop with the "Oh look an atheist" posts? At least make an effort to address the topic at hand here. This is a question that should interest anyone.

Every religion is different, so what exactly are you asking?



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dulfite on 30 January 2016
Torillian said:
sabvre42 said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  

FYI - This is a classical misinterpretation. It wasn't until The Divine Comedy that hell was considered to be the concept that it is now. Its often considered a misintrepration by the catholic church in order to scare people into good behavior. 

So then there is no hell or hell isn't a place of fire and burning?  Because if there isn't hell and everyone goes to heaven I don't really have to concern myself with believing in god, and if there is a hell and god sends people there then I don't want to worship an asshole.  

There is a lake of fire and hell will be the worst thing for those who reject God's offering of salvation, but the worst part of hell, the part that people should be focusing on, is the eternal separation from God, who loves you more than you can comprehend.





AsGryffynn on 30 January 2016

Probability alone hints that the existence of a god is likely...



Around the Network
Soundwave on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:
Torillian said:
sabvre42 said:
Torillian said:
Dulfite said:

It's not a rule against his own ability to be in sin, that is a common misconception. Sin is literally the opposite of God, because HE is totally holy and righteous. Sin is the absence of godliness. Again, people act like loving God is a sacrifice or that it's forced. HE is extending HIS hand to you and everyone else at all times. If people want to reject that hand, how is it God's fault? I love every second I've had since becoming a Christian, not just because I'm now saved (that's just the beginning) but now I have a relationship with the creator of myself, the way it was meant to be, and HE is constantly changing me for the better and ridding me of sinful desires and replacing those desires with love for HIM and love for HIS children (all humans). I have never loved believers in Christ and non believers more than I do now and I know that will continue to grow.

So what stops him from forgiving people of their sin without the whole "you have to love me and believe in me even though I gave you an analytical brain and refuse to prove myself logically" thing?  The concept of an all-powerful all-loving god that sends you to hell if you don't believe in him either requires that he has to (not all-powerful) or wants to (not all-loving).  

FYI - This is a classical misinterpretation. It wasn't until The Divine Comedy that hell was considered to be the concept that it is now. Its often considered a misintrepration by the catholic church in order to scare people into good behavior. 

So then there is no hell or hell isn't a place of fire and burning?  Because if there isn't hell and everyone goes to heaven I don't really have to concern myself with believing in god, and if there is a hell and god sends people there then I don't want to worship an asshole.  

There is a lake of fire and hell will be the worst thing for those who reject God's offering of salvation, but the worst part of hell, the part that people should be focusing on, is the eternal separation from God, who loves you more than you can comprehend.

Apparently doesn't love you enough or isn't powerful enough to get you out of there. 

This isn't a compassionate being, if a parent did something comparable to a child, we'd call the parent cruel and heartless. 

Also how egotistical or insecure is he that he needs to be constantly worshipped to? Does a parent ask his kids to worship him/her constantly? 

Dude creates the entire cosmos but still needs a pledge of allegiance that only be sanctioned by particular religious sects? Yeah that makes sense. 



Anfebious on 30 January 2016

VGChartz would be dead if it wasn't for this threads.

And to think that this site once used to be a place to talk about videogames.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
RadiantDanceMachine said:
sabvre42 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

This is a wonderful example of dishonesty. Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted.

The burden of proof lies with any claim maker. If the atheist is of the positive variety, i.e. embraces the claim "No gods exist" then indeed they do have a burden. However, if the atheist is of the negative variety, i.e. does not make any claims merely does not embrace the claim "God(s) exist" (more commonly known as agnostic...wrongly) then there is no burden.

It requires no faith to believe that the Universe is infinite. You've even admitted to the facts which lead to that adbuctive inference...those being the expansion of the Universe (indeed, at a rate faster than the speed of light), as well as the fact that the Universe is already much larger than what we can observe.

Furthermore, what does the expansion of the Universe have anything to do with atheism? You seem to have related completely unrelated things here.

What is a belief in "nothing"? That isn't even a coherent sentence to me and certainly has nothing to do with atheism (again).

 Indeed, conservation of energy is preserved...and violated by the notion that a magical wizard manifested it into existence out of nothing. This is contrary to everything we know about physics and philosophy for that matter. Creatio ex nihilo is thought to be logically impossible in addition to being physically (nomologically) impossible. I trust you're aware that physicists do not believe that the Universe is a creatio ex nihilo event, but I can expound if necessary.

Causality is a principle that applies temporally, however since time is thought not to have always been one cannot really comment about a contingency on causality when referencing the Universe itself. This is a abstraction problem on your behalf.

No burden here, as I am not a positive atheist. Indeed it's a position which one could say is nearly as ridiculous as the theistic claim.

 

There is no such thing as an aegnostic aethist. You are simply an aegnostic with aethist tendancies. The term "aegnostic aethiest" is an oxymoron. 

I have no qualm against aegnostics. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. My problem is with the person that claims to be an aethiest and therefore belives themselves intellectual superior (cause... reasons). The whole reason for this tread being created is narcissm. "I believe I am smarter than anyone who could believe in some *myth*". The fact is -- you need to understand that its not as binary as you think it to be.

The largest problem I have with the mainstream "aethiest" is that they assume god is either a sentient being - or nothing. God is a concept that the judiac religions personified.

Its kinda ironic how you reference casaulity only applying to our universe in our frame of reference -- but yet the concept of god is flawed for the same reason? Awefully hippocritical isn't it?  

Definitions are arbitrary. So your contention may be true for the definitions you hold for agnostic, atheism, but certainly not true for what I do. I was very careful with offering my definitions so you could understand. Instead you ignored them, pretended definitions are not arbitrary and asserted that THE definition is [X].

That's quite the assertion about my thread and myself. Have any supporting reasons for it? (*chuckles*)

Everything is binary. A proposition is either true or false. This is really fundamental to logic...you know it by the law of the excluded middle term. 

If you can show me where I claimed that the concept of god is flawed, I'd be happy to address it. However, knowing that I made no such claim, I doubt there is anything to address.

=)

Definitions are not arbitrary.  They are fluid, and can change, but they do not pop out of the air... which is kinda why I stopped replying to him...

Agnostic atheist is absolutely not an oxymoron.  I explained the distinction pretty clearly which is why I gave up.

A-theist

From the greek atheos.  "A" meaning without and "theos" meaning a god.  So, whitout a god. 

Gnostic is from the greek gnostikos.  Meaning "knowing".

Agnostic simply means "not knowing" or "not sure". 


Agnostic does not refer to what you believe, it refers to what you know.  For instance, I strongly believe the NX will launch in 2016, but I don't KNOW that it will.  So regarding the claim "the NX will launch in 2016" I am agnostic.

In terms of god, I am also agnostic, as in I don't think I know certainly there is no god.  I am also an atheist.  Because I do not believe the claim that there is a god.


So, you put those together and you get agnostic atheist.  I prefer the term atheist though, because the fact that I don't know that there is a god should be implicit.

If you believe there is a god, but don't know it for sure, congratulations.  You're also agnostic.  An agnostic theist.

It's really a very simply concept. A quick wikipedia search would have explained it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."  Robert Flint



JWeinCom on 30 January 2016
Dulfite said:
Torillian said:
 

So then there is no hell or hell isn't a place of fire and burning?  Because if there isn't hell and everyone goes to heaven I don't really have to concern myself with believing in god, and if there is a hell and god sends people there then I don't want to worship an asshole.  

There is a lake of fire and hell will be the worst thing for those who reject God's offering of salvation, but the worst part of hell, the part that people should be focusing on, is the eternal separation from God, who loves you more than you can comprehend.

So... if you had children, and they did something wrong like not obeying or loving you, would you lock them in your basement and torture them forever?

And, yeah... if you want to believe things for no reason, fine.  If you want to believe in things for no reason, then tell people that they deserve eternal torture for not believing it, that's when there is a problem.



Puppyroach on 30 January 2016

One question though: What god are we talking about? It seems that is kind of up in the air.