God

Keep things civil, people, or else we'll put you in time-out.

Moderators: Moderator, Admin, Developer

User avatar
UmbraSight
Moderator
Posts: 1536
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:07 am
Location: Lost in the Snow

Re: God

Post by UmbraSight » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:59 pm

Wint wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:51 pm
People don't necessarily land in specific boxes.
If we are distilling things down to base traits, we can. When we are talking about disbelief it can settle down into certain categories. The hard denial, sometimes with good reason, sometimes without, the denial based upon a lack of evidence for the item in question, and denial based upon confliction with currently held beliefs.

"God does not exist" is making a positive statement. It is one which requires evidence to support it; ex. "There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that God or gods exist," or "God in how it as an entity is incompatible with our understanding of physics."

"I do not believe a god exists because it has not been proven," this is not making a positive claim. It is a simple statement of disbelief due to lack of evidence.

"I do not believe in Zeus, because I believe in God." Interestingly often their reason for not believing in Zues typically lines up with most atheists, there is no evidce for Zues, so I believe in God. But in the end it is making a positive claim that God exists, and depending on how the person words it, it could also be making a positive claim that Zeus doesn't exist.

Are there other ways to divide it up? Sure. But we are talking in broad arguments - those that straight deny and those that leave the door open to further discussion.
If, hypothetically, someone could summon God, people could test their beliefs in interviews or anything else they might think off. In that case, denying his existence would end up being just that; denial.
In your hypothetical we would have literal proof of a god existing. Yes it would be denial, because we would be denying actual proof. However this is not the case with reality, no substantial evidence has been provided to point towards there being a god.

What you're describing in the second option is, for the most part, an agnostic atheist.
But the thing is, both could say that religion doesn't have enough evidence. It doesn't matter which box they supposedly land in.
It does matter due to how these two groups are both approaching the question. The second option is rejecting a claim because a burden of proof is not met, however they are not basing a claim of their own on it. They are saying "I cannot believe your claim because you are not supporting it to a degree I find necessary."

The first option could potentially use the exact same reasoning for their denial. But the difference is the first group is using it as evidence in their case against the opposing claim. The first group is saying "God does not exist, we know this because we cannot detect him in any way."

The second group is not saying, as a matter of fact, that God isn't real, just that there is no good reason to believe if evidence is not provided.
There are scientists who work on the field of evolution who believe in God and have found ways that make the two beliefs coexist, but it doesn't necessarily mean that God does or does not exist.
Ok, and? Christians can be scientists, but that does not mean their beliefs are valadated scientifically, nor does it mean there is any sort of issue with them holding the belief.
You can claim what you will, but since the initial claim was that there is a God and not that there isn't, that's what's needed to be proven.
Yes.
I can very well say that there is a pink pebble with wings that can fly on our planet Earth, but until you've examined them all, you can't truly claim that there isn't one, regardless of how ridiculous that claim may be (rocks are inanimate, how would the wings attach, how would the wings get their chemical energy...).
If you aren't meeting your burden of proof for the claim that there are flying rocks, it is not rational to believe they exist due to there being a possibility. What the second group is asking is for you to show that the thing exists before they choose to believe it. Their request for evidence and disbelief due to the lack of evidence is not the same as denial. The second group is denying what, based on their knowledge, is physically impossible. The second group does have a burden of proof to show that such a rock does not exist. And I am not stating wether or not that position is tenable. Proving that a thing doesn't exist is often hard.

But the point is that you don't have to find evidence to support the fact that there isn't a flying pink stone on planet Earth. It's my responsibility to prove that there is one in the first place.
Yes.
//...from the stillness, shifting. From the silence, a gasp...//Fall of the Aelir Isles Vol III

User avatar
Wint
Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 5:07 am
Location: Where my hope lies.

Re: God

Post by Wint » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:08 pm

Beliefs can change, and so not believing in something can be temporary. I don't know where I land. I know that I am an atheist; whether I'm agnostic or not, I don't believe in God. Perhaps since I'm not making a direct claim that he cannot exist it means I'm agnostic, but I think I land somewhere in the middle, as much as it makes no sense.
I do believe that in order for me to do believe in God or at least question my beliefs, there would need to be more evidence than the testaments and the fact that there are other people who believe in him.
I leave the door to further discussions, so I suppose in a part of the second group, but it doesn't mean that I don't think that God does not exist. It's merely the stability of my beliefs that's at stake, not their core. I understand that a God showing up would be a literal and direct proof of his existence, but otherwise I can't push a box that says that there is no chance that a God could exist. What I'm saying is that, and apologies for the confusion, I do not believe in God and with the existing amounts of evidence that are lacking, I cannot change my beliefs. For now, anyway. And till there will be further proof, my beliefs won't change.
I don't believe in Zeus, nor do I believe in Brahman, nor do I believe in God. That is my standpoint as an atheist, and the poor explaining of it stands in the paragraph above.
“It’s not the size of your brain that matters, it’s whether or not you can set things on fire with it” ~ A wise philosopher

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:38 pm

Fumikawa wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:36 pm
Wint wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:09 pm
Wint wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:43 am
A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Saying "You cannot prove a negative" is a pseudologic because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
Yet nobody has gone through the trouble of backing up their claims, both positive and negative, with evidence or at least a semi-solid argument.
You couldn't be bothered to participate in the debate you started in your own topic. Why should anyone else have been?

For the record, as Wint pointed out in the post he and you are quoting, this debate is effectively impossible to have without resorting to fallacies. There is no way to prove that God exists. There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist. According to some interpretations of the various holy works surrounding this deity, that's the whole point of this. There's no meaningful debate to be had about this.

There are meaningful debates to be had about the nature of belief, or faith--which is what Umbra and Wint are doing, right now--but that's not what you asked about. You asked people to try to prove or disprove the existence of God. I'm not sure why you were surprised when people turned that topic into a joke.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:53 pm

Wholey32 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:42 pm
I can prove god exists, he lives in my heart
Prepare the vivisection theatre!
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:55 pm

Wholey32 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:54 pm
What's vivisection
It's like dissection, but the subject is still alive.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:57 pm

Wholey32 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:56 pm
That sounds mean
Look, you said he lives in your heart, and that this proves his existence, so we need to vivisect you to see if he's actually there.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:07 pm

I'm pretty sure God doesn't live in my heart, so that would prove nothing.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:10 pm

Wow; I thought that was how you got good, not how you got god.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:13 pm

Wholey32 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:12 pm
God is good
I thought God contained all things.
Image

Snowskeeper
Member
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:46 pm

Re: God

Post by Snowskeeper » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:20 pm

Wholey32 wrote:
Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:13 pm
All things contain god
So god is evil!
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests