Debate: God Exists

[KUSA]

And what would you accept as proof he didn't exist?

Nothing. You can't convince him that nothing is there.

I can understand to some degree someone that isn't sure about the existence of god but chooses to believe anyway. I can not understand someone that is 100% sure and claims to have irrefutable proof even thought the proof can't be proven.

[masterofpuppets]

And what would you accept as proof he didn't exist?

Nothing. You can't convince him that nothing is there.

I can understand to some degree someone that isn't sure about the existence of god but chooses to believe anyway. I can not understand someone that is 100% sure and claims to have irrefutable proof even thought the proof can't be proven.

Belief isn't a choice. Believing something means to become convinced that it is true.

I can't choose whether or not I want to become convinced that a god exists. I simply am either convinced or not.

[KUSA]

Nothing. You can't convince him that nothing is there.

I can understand to some degree someone that isn't sure about the existence of god but chooses to believe anyway. I can not understand someone that is 100% sure and claims to have irrefutable proof even thought the proof can't be proven.

Belief isn't a choice. Believing something means to become convinced that it is true.

I can't choose whether or not I want to become convinced that a god exists. I simply am either convinced or not.

That's a valid point however, most theists believe without being properly convinced first. They ignore facts and fabricate garbage for evidence.

So, belief isn't a choice but considering all the evidence is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Suppose you have 4 explanations about any given phenomena. The first three have some flaw. For the fourth, there is no plausible objection. Does that mean the fourth is true? No. It only means that it is reasonable to believe the fourth it is true as a tentative working theory provided it is coherent and conforms to experience.

By "every single other possible explanation" I don't just mean all explanations we have, but every possible explanation.

It would only be reasonable to believe in 4 if we ruled out all possible explanations, not just all explanations we currently have.

People cannot move forward with their lives if they will only believe things after excluding all possible explanations. Possible explanations are infinite. That goes for pretty much any belief. Do you believe Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? In doing so, have you excluded all possible explanations of Lincoln's death, like maybe a time-traveling alien doppelganger of Booth? I doubt it.

[Jesster]

That's why we don't bother with ruling things out in order to prove something else. It's far better to look for positive evidence for something in order to believe it. This is why nothing wins by default, as previously stated.

Ruling something out is still useful in disproving a claim, but it will never prove another.

[RoadRunner79]

By "every single other possible explanation" I don't just mean all explanations we have, but every possible explanation.

It would only be reasonable to believe in 4 if we ruled out all possible explanations, not just all explanations we currently have.

People cannot move forward with their lives if they will only believe things after excluding all possible explanations. Possible explanations are infinite. That goes for pretty much any belief. Do you believe Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? In doing so, have you excluded all possible explanations of Lincoln's death, like maybe a time-traveling alien doppelganger of Booth? I doubt it.

Not to mention, it is bad logic and bad science. We would never get anywhere. If there are other reasonable options however!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Exactly right, RR79, if we followed their advice people would be agnostic about who shot Lincoln. That's not how reasonable belief works. People tentatively accept that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln because no plausible alternative is available.

[Jesster]

Do you understand how court rulings work? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the typical design.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you understand how court rulings work? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the typical design.

Yes. Unless the defense presents plausible objections, the evidence stands.

[Jesster]

Do you understand how court rulings work? "Innocent until proven guilty" is the typical design.

Yes. Unless the defense presents plausible objections, the evidence stands.

Yes. We don't bother with proving someone else innocent to see if your defendant is innocent. We wait for positive evidence to see if your defendant is actually guilty before calling them so.

This applies well to many claims. Don't accept a claim until you have enough positive evidence to believe it. Disproving another claim does not make your claim more noteworthy. "I don't believe it" is the default until shown otherwise.

Thank you for understanding.