EminemBase vs. Blu - God

[TonyTilt]

He said he's going to post after breakfast, give him the benefit of the doubt.

[DanWS]

He said he's going to post after breakfast, give him the benefit of the doubt.

And then he said "I think we're going to have to drop this debate", i.e. pussying out.

[BigBoss]

I think we're going to have to drop this debate.

God's existence is subjective, and tbh there's not much facts I could bring to the table that would help my case. Bringing up the Bible, Qur'an, or Tanakh really wouldn't do me much good because I'm not so sure myself if those books are truthful.

No, god's existence isn't subjective. Belief in god, is.

There either is a god, or there isn't. It's a scientific question.

Something either exists, or it doesn't. You can choose to believe there is a god despite lack of evidence but that doesn't make the chances of a god 50/50.

And if you don't want to have this debate, why did you ask to?

this is what i meant, but in better words.

[NextEpisode]

There are no real proof for the existence of a "god", but nor are there any real proof for the non-existence of a "god". And, as far as science goes, how does 0 + 0 become 1? I won't argue for, nor against an existence of a "god", because arguing against/for faith, just doesn’t make any sense, imo.

Thomas Jefferson, once said: Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

[EminemBase]

There are no real proof for the existence of a "god", but nor are there any real proof for the non-existence of a "god". And, as far as science goes, how does 0 + 0 become 1? I won't argue for, nor against an existence of a "god", because arguing against/for faith, just doesn’t make any sense, imo.

I'm sick and tired of seeing people say "there isn't proof that god DOESN'T exist"...

You're talking about proving a negative.

It's very hard to prove any negative. The point is, it's a huge claim with ZERO evidence, and there is evidence against the idea of a specific god. People argue god created humans, and species, separately where as DNA and fossil records prove all species are related, and that we evolved.

I could claim I could jump to Mars. Now, I'm not going to prove that I can, but you can't 'prove I can't' either. Does that make the possibility of me being able to jump to Mars 50/50? no, it's very very unlikely in fact in common terms, impossible.

It's impossible given what we know about a human's ability to jump, strength, distance and so on. The chances of a god are not 50/50. God is as close to zero as any claim in history.

We only can't say 'no god 100%' conservatively, as humans and intelligent people, like we can't truly, about any claim. But ridiculous claims, with no evidence or logic, are as good as none at all.

If we just treated every claim we couldn't 'technically disprove' like god (the list is infinite) then our beliefs would be a coin toss. In practice, we don't do this. People apply common sense and probability in all other areas of their life and belief. Everybody just makes an exception for belief in god because so many believe it. But it's just as ridiculous, and unlikely and unneeded as any.

[NextEpisode]

There are no real proof for the existence of a "god", but nor are there any real proof for the non-existence of a "god". And, as far as science goes, how does 0 + 0 become 1? I won't argue for, nor against an existence of a "god", because arguing against/for faith, just doesn’t make any sense, imo.

I'm sick and tired of seeing people say "there isn't proof that god DOESN'T exist"...

You're talking about proving a negative.

It's very hard to prove any negative. The point is, it's a huge claim with ZERO evidence, and there is evidence against the idea of a specific god. People argue god created humans, and species, separately where as DNA and fossil records prove all species are related, and that we evolved.

I could claim I could jump to Mars. Now, I'm not going to prove that I can, but you can't 'prove I can't' either. Does that make the possibility of me being able to jump to Mars 50/50? no, it's very very unlikely in fact in common terms, impossible.

It's impossible given what we know about a human's ability to jump, strength, distance and so on. The chances of a god are not 50/50. God is as close to zero as any claim in history.

We only can't say 'no god 100%' conservatively, as humans and intelligent people, like we can't truly, about any claim. But ridiculous claims, with no evidence or logic, are as good as none at all.

If we just treated every claim we couldn't 'technically disprove' like god (the list is infinite) then our beliefs would be a coin toss. In practice, we don't do this. People apply common sense and probability in all other areas of their life and belief. Everybody just makes an exception for belief in god because so many believe it. But it's just as ridiculous, and unlikely and unneeded as any.

You can be as "sick and tired" as you want, the fact still remains; There are no real proof for the existence of a "god", nor are there any real proof for the non-existence of a "god".

If you would've read my whole post, I pointed out - at the end - that I didn't want to I argue for, nor against an existence of a "god", because arguing against/for faith, still, just doesn’t make any sense to me.

You wrote: It's very hard to prove any negative. The point is, it's a huge claim with ZERO evidence, and there is evidence against the idea of a specific god.People argue god created humans, and species, separately where as DNA and fossil records prove all species are related, and that we evolved.

(i) Never did I specify any sort of religion/"god" in my original post? No. You might not have noticed, but I consistently write "god".

(ii) "The idea of..." and "People argue...". Really?... Wasn't the question whether a "god" existed or not? Not what people's perception of a "god" is, or what they believe he/she/it did, or didn't do?

(iii) I find your example of jump/strength not at all relevant to this issue. And, who said anything about a 50/50 probability?

[EminemBase]

^ And the fact still remains that there's no proof I 'can't' jump to Mars, is there?

So is the claim of me being able to jump to Mars a respectable claim or 50/50?

If you treat the claim of god that way, it's hypocritical to not treat all claims this way.

The proof 'against' god is the impossible nature of the claim itself. If you make a claim which on the surface is inherently illogical and improbable - until proven, it remains illogical and improbable and nearly as good as not existing itself.

So when you make that statement of there being no proof of the 'non-existence' of god - that doesn't make the chances 50/50. It's close to zero. As there's no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim, not those who remain unconvinced or neutral in the face of it.

And, if you don't want to debate it, why post at all.

By making a post you're provoking a response, and you know this. So, take it.

[BILI]

Scientists have proven that there is afterlife like a month ago so there is god also..

[BILI]

Scientists have proven that there is afterlife like a month ago so there is god also..

Eh, what?

Yeah I read it in a magazine,its something about stars and shit,nice read tho. I am Christian but tbh I never really believed in all of that,at least not 100%,but stuff like this give me hope

[Slim Fiasco]

People apply common sense and probability in all other areas of their life and belief. Everybody just makes an exception for belief in god because so many believe it. But it's just as ridiculous, and unlikely and unneeded as any.

This. I can't see why religious people don't believe in Santa Claus? They can't be thinking it's illogical, can they?

[BILI]

People apply common sense and probability in all other areas of their life and belief. Everybody just makes an exception for belief in god because so many believe it. But it's just as ridiculous, and unlikely and unneeded as any.

This. I can't see why religious people don't believe in Santa Claus? They can't be thinking it's illogical, can they?

Fuck U I believe in Santa

[EminemBase]

People apply common sense and probability in all other areas of their life and belief. Everybody just makes an exception for belief in god because so many believe it. But it's just as ridiculous, and unlikely and unneeded as any.

This. I can't see why religious people don't believe in Santa Claus? They can't be thinking it's illogical, can they?

Well it's because they don't get that 'free gift inside' with the belief.

People get Christmas presents whether they believe in Santa or not, from their family and friends.

But religions tell people they need to believe in god, to get everlasting life. So it's based on wishful thinking, it's a want, a desire. But that doesn't make it true, or any more plausible than any number of insane ideas I could rattle of the top of my brain in any given moment.

If there was no promise of protection, or no promise of an 'afterlife' or no concept of being able to basically... scapegoat and get a free ride for all the wrong / evil shit you may do throughout your life, the belief ratio would drop like dead flies. The reasoning is just so revealing.

[EminemBase]

Why are you so obsessed with debating religion? Wouldnt it get old by now?

I'm not somebody asked / challenged me to this. Keep up.

[B.A.D.]

But what type of God's existence are you arguing about?

Creator God? Religious God? Scientific God or Gods?

If its religious God, well, of course not. That Santa Claus example was perfect. Its just part of it.

Scientific God or Gods, well that's the most debatable, as the sources that "prove" its existence can not be accounted for or proven out to be truthful. (probably with weird exceptions)

And creator God, well, obviously yes. But the problem is that everybody confuses it with the Religious God. And they imagine A guy with a long white beard while it can be just a particle, if that makes sense.

and that's it, there's no other way around it.

[EminemBase]

But what type of God's existence are you arguing about?

Creator God? Religious God? Scientific God or Gods?

If its religious God, well, of course not. That Santa Claus example was perfect. Its just part of it.

Scientific God or Gods, well that's the most debatable, as the sources that "prove" its existence can not be accounted for or proven out to be truthful. (probably with weird exceptions)

And creator God, well, obviously yes. But the problem is that everybody confuses it with the Religious God. And they imagine A guy with a long white beard while it can be just a particle, if that makes sense.

and that's it, there's no other way around it.

Well the typical definition of a god is a creator and conscious superpower. So by that definition alone, the very use of the word implies a religious god.

But, obviously the word has been re-appropriated and Einstein and others used it poetically to refer to nature and more broadly speaking, that of the universe which seems ordered and mysterious.

A scientific god, as in, a 'creative mind' (to to speak) which is not conscious / self-aware and does not concern itself with human affairs or trivial events but is, the fundamental creative drive, force and beginning of the universe... that's the only vaguely plausible concept concerning any kind of god. That could be debated in more intelligent circles, but I still disagree with it.

You make a distinction however, between a religious god and a 'creator' god where as... religions propose the idea that god created Earth and all life on it - and is conscious and humanistic. Now, you mention a 'white beard' etc. - obviously the appearance of such a being is trivial and not relevant to the debate of its existence but, a religious god and a 'creator god' are one in the same?

I don't see the difference in distinction there.

There are obviously thousands of specific gods throughout history and whenever I denounce the existence of god personally, I'm not referring to either one of them and don't hold a bias against any one specific god or image of god. I'm dismissing and debating the concept itself, the idea of ANY kind of conscious being / creator / overlord / superpower that knowingly created the universe as we think of ourselves creating technology. This idea is not only profoundly unlikely, implausible and unproven but... it doesn't actually explain anything.

Religious people often then pertain to the idea that such a god is so mysteriously powerful and magical that it does not warrant an explanation lmao. They basically say 'god was just there' - well, that's hypocritical and short-sighted as, if god, an intrinsically complex and intelligent thing can just 'pop into existence' or 'always be there'... why can't the Universe? if god doesn't need a creator, who says the Universe does. It's a new layer of anti-explanation that does nothing but rewind.

As that creator would have to be AT LEAST as complex as the things it creates, so trying to explain the existence of things with the beginning of something even more complex solves nothing. it's an entirely useless, unhelpful and unlikely idea that unless somebody can throw a shred of evidence in the ring for its credibility, should be thrown out with any other pointless idea.

And evolution through natural selection has shown that life does not need a conscious creator. It's such a deeply beautiful, eye-opening and obvious explanation that is so obviously true, and... it just goes to show that things that are intelligent and which appear to be designed and thought-out can come to be through something other than conscious creation. So if life can occur this way, there isn't any particular reason the Universe couldn't have.

Some kind of Darwinian explanation of the Universe could make sense. We obviously have The Big Bang theory and there's lots of debate within Physics that is just FUCKING complex and confusing but, there's absolutely no need or sensible reason to take the 'god theory' seriously at this point. Not that there ever was, apart from perhaps when we knew basically, next to no science.