Debate: God Exists

[Cyberman]

What's irrational about reserving belief until presented with sufficient convincing evidence? It's practically the very definition of rationality. Or are you merely flailing wildly again?

[Neo-Scholastic]

What's irrational about reserving belief until presented with sufficient convincing evidence? It's practically the very definition of rationality. Or are you merely flailing wildly again?

Well, when you say it like that, I have some sympathy. Where you see insufficient evidence, I see the concepts required for rational thought to be possible.

[Cyberman]

Exactly. You present your case, offer supporting evidence, I assess it. If I find it compelling, I can be swayed. I might even be convinced. That's how it works. Think of it as selling me a second-hand car; what would get me to part with my cash?

[Whateverist]

Regarding the OP:  Debate: God Exists


Counterpoint:  No, He doesn't

[I_am_not_mafia]

What's irrational about reserving belief until presented with sufficient convincing evidence?

That's crazy talk that is! Who knows what that would lead to!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Exactly. You present your case, offer supporting evidence, I assess it. If I find it compelling, I can be swayed. I might even be convinced. That's how it works. Think of it as selling me a second-hand car; what would get me to part with my cash?

That is an honest and respectable position, and I stress the word position. You have not back-peddled as some do into the "simply disbelieve" dodge. You have looked at the proposition and justified your positive believe that the proposition "God exists" is not true.

As a more general point, I would say that the role of logical demonstrations are not to convince anyone. There must first be apprehension of the ineffable. I'm not trying to sell you anything other than a reasonable interpretation of those kinds of experiences. I'm not sure how many people have had such encounters (being-as-such and the wonder of personal existence); although, I believe they are common enough. I am only suggesting/reminding people to dive into those experiences and explore them rather than dismiss them out-of-hand.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1517291' dateline='1488236504']


I think maybe the British mind is simply not wired for 'dry' humor even if I wrap it in a poop joke.

---

[/quote]
Britsh humour V American humour, which is deeper?

[Cyberman]

Exactly. You present your case, offer supporting evidence, I assess it. If I find it compelling, I can be swayed. I might even be convinced. That's how it works. Think of it as selling me a second-hand car; what would get me to part with my cash?

That is an honest and respectable position, and I stress the word position. You have not back-peddled as some do into the "simply disbelieve" dodge. You have looked at the proposition and justified your positive believe that the proposition "God exists" is not true.

That's not quite accurate. I don't have a positive belief the way you describe. My position has always been "I withhold belief until the proposition "God exists" is demonstrated to be true". I hesitate to invoke Matt Dillahunty's courtroom analogy, simply because it's often misapplied, but it is at least accurate to my position. I may or may not hold beliefs as to the guilt of the defendant, but I have to suspend them in order to assess the evidence rationally. You may take some comfort in the fact that that's how I approach my rôle as Staff here - it's no secret that there have been certain individuals over whom I would shed no tears in their banning. However, I could not do the job and would actually be doing a grave disservice were I to let any such biases influence my judgement.

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you think that lack of belief in God can be without consequence?

I meant for reasoning about ultimate issues.

How would that even work?

P.S. It's not a lack it's an absence. It's atheism that is lacking. We need more of it.

---

What's irrational about reserving belief until presented with sufficient convincing evidence? It's practically the very definition of rationality. Or are you merely flailing wildly again?

Well, when you say it like that, I have some sympathy. Where you see insufficient evidence, I see the concepts required for rational thought to be possible.

No supernatural mind is required for concepts that make rational thought possible.

Know what you need for concepts that make rational thought possible? Minds. No supernaturalness required.

As the story of LaPlace and Napoleon goes (Bonaparte that is: Not the dickhead on these forums):



No God Required.

[Harry Nevis]

Again what if that man has indeed experienced God in some form or fashion?

Again, without objective evidence, it deserves no attention, except by a psychologist.

I've been placed in the dark, and I've ASKED to be placed in the dark?!

If God says look here for me this way, and you look there your way, then by your actions are you not wanting to find nothing? Who are you to expect God to meet you on your terms?

No god has ever told me to do anything, so your point is pointless.

---

If God is real, the high prevalence of animism and ancestor worship wherever 'civilized religion' has not been introduced becomes very perplexing if the God in question is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and desires that people believe in it. You'd think everyone would be remarking on how frequently a new tribe is discovered that turns out to worship Jesus and Yahweh if Jesus and Yahweh are real and can communicate without human agents.

To some degree you are right. At the same time even the oldest known aboriginal traditions include some kind of 'Great Spirit' albeit a generally distant and indifferent being. Personally, I ascribe to the notion of progressive revelation so the idea that prehistoric and early pagan religion only partially reflect the fullness of the divine doesn't bother me all that much. That pattern is part of the growth of Christianity out of the prior Abrahamic, Mosaic, Prophetic and Intertestimonial periods, in that order. (As for Muslims, they are being deceived by a demonic "Angel of Light" as predicted by Paul)

Or you're the one deceived. But how can you know?

---

That I didn't recognise it as a joke indicates the level of humour it displayed.

I myself am a very funny person.

No one likes a laugh more than I do.
Except my wife.......and some of her friends...thinking about most people like a laugh more than I do....



Not really I'm a scream.

If a douche bag fails to get a joke, does it mean the joke is without humor?

No of course not. douche bags fail to get really good jokes all the time, as they are most often occupied in building themselves up. So busy infact they often see intentional attempts at self deprecating humor, as an unintentional error no matter how ridiculous the mistake would have been in order for them to be right.

Butt (pun) that's ok because it just underscores the level of douche baggery one must be set to endure to bring the gospel to the 'unwashed masses.'  
maybe I should all my jokes

So THAT'S your shtick.  Asshole for Christ.  I bet people just convert in piles around your feet.

---

Which God are you talking about ?

Zeus or Thor ?

FSM.  The only true god.
It should have been obvious.

He wasn't using his noodle.

HA! See what I did there?  I kill myself sometimes.....

---

Again, late to the party...
Anyway, given that mankind has evolved from other apes and then from mammals, it should be safe to admit that once upon a time the concept of God or gods didn't exist in any mind on this Earth.
At some point in pre-history that concept appeared in human minds.
How?
What was the first concept of God like?
How?!

This first "how"is important. If there is a god, then that god likely presented itself... If so, then it should be able to present itself to everyone else... That it doesn't presents a challenge to the initial premise.
If it doesn't exist, then it was invented by human imagination... Need I say more?

That's the thing sport. we are all hurdling toward the day that God does indeed 'present' Himself, but unfortunately it will be far too late to seek or find redemption at that point.


Why? because the point of redemption is to be earnestly and honestly genuine sorry for your sins, and not sorry you got caught, which is what a judgment day recanment of sin would show to be.

However we all do indeed have an opportunity to 'meet God' before that day. But on his terms, not yours.

Your god seems to be quite the dick.  And you are so god-like.

---

Exactly. You present your case, offer supporting evidence, I assess it. If I find it compelling, I can be swayed. I might even be convinced. That's how it works. Think of it as selling me a second-hand car; what would get me to part with my cash?

That is an honest and respectable position, and I stress the word position. You have not back-peddled as some do into the "simply disbelieve" dodge. You have looked at the proposition and justified your positive believe that the proposition "God exists" is not true.

I would say that is the position of most, if not all, on this board.  Why would you assume otherwise?