Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[Seraphina]

Non of this relates in any way to the OP.


No. The stipulation was:


"Willing to consider", not "demonstrate non existence of".

OMG, he spoke to me!! 

---

But that is exactly the point of my question.  Discussing the existence of something when one person is emotionally invested in belief through faith and the other only wants to believe in it if it's actually true, is not a dicussion, it's a conversation attempt.  And with relatives, it's likely to lead to a guilt trip as well.  So, it's a conversation I'd really rather not have.  The point of my question is to avoid the the conversion altogether.

Not that I mind debate. I rather like it.  But that isn't what conversations with faithful relatives leads to.

But that's what I'm saying though. Of course we (well, at least myself) only want to believe in it if it's true. If I found out God didn't exist, trust me, there would be no reason for me to lie to myself. But the point is it's impossible to know with 100% certainty whether it actually is or is not true. 

There currently exists legitimate reasons to think that it is, and legitimate reason to think that it isn't. A person usually takes the position that is most convincing to them and makes the most sense to them. But without concrete proof they are only left to hope that they are right, and that's where the faith part comes in. It doesn't mean they want to believe in it even if it isn't true. It means they think it probably is, and fill in the uncertainty part with faith/hope. 

It's interesting for me personally to discuss the reason for whatever position a person takes on the issue, but I can see why it would be frustrating for either party to try to convince the other person when there is no concrete proof either way.

I can't make head or tails of what you're saying here. You're arguing in circles.

-Teresa

[Ravenshire]

It's about whether you want to believe what is factually true, or even most likely to be true and not wanting to believe things that are false or very likely to be false.

Huggies only cares about factual truths when he thinks he can use one to make someone look bad.

[Minimalist]

Huggie wouldn't know a fact if it kicked him in the nuts.

[Ravenshire]

I thought I answered that, if you can prove God does not exist, I would stop believing in him.

Y'all act like evidence for God doesn't exist, it does, y'all just don't want to examine it objectively.

So, present it or shut the fuck up.

If you had actual, testable, verifiable evidence you could win a fucking Nobel prize, but all you do is talk shit. Put up or shut up Huggies.

[Minimalist]

y'all just don't want to examine it objectively.

And by "objectively" you mean with our heads up our asses.

[Huggy Bear]

I thought I answered that, if you can prove God does not exist, I would stop believing in him.

Y'all act like evidence for God doesn't exist, it does, y'all just don't want to examine it objectively.

So, present it or shut the fuck up.

If you had actual, testable, verifiable evidence you could win a fucking Nobel prize, but all you do is talk shit. Put up or shut up Huggies.

Who said anything about testable? If God was testable then he wouldn't be supernatural would he? Not all evidence is testable... must I point out scientific beliefs you hold that are in no way testable? So you can sit down.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd like to present some untestable evidence, I take it?

[Huggy Bear]

Consider it corroborating evidence...

[The Grand Nudger]

I won't be considering it at all, lol.  I was just looking for clarity.  You require the introduction of "evidence" you deem to be untestable, yes...no?

Have at it, but you've already scuttled whatever argument you'll be looking to provide in the absence of any actual evidence..since you've deemed it's propositions untestable. If that were so, then how should -you- know whether or not any given proposition were sound in the first place, and why should anyone else accept your say so by mere assertion? You will be left making claims, nothing more or less.

This, btw, I find ironic. I'm uninterested in whatever passes for "evidence" between your ears, but I am amused by the fact that you are likely seeking to place this "evidence" beyond testability as a hedge against failure. This is, ofc, precisely why such "evidence" fails in the first place. You have demanded that it cannot even be demonstrated to be evident, let alone true....because both of those would require -some- sort of test. It's a fairly common affliction among the faithful. The need to have a rationalization combined with the desire to avoid any possible consequences of playing at reason. Personally, I'd tell you to just make up your mind one way or the other and let the chips fall. The worst that could happen is that you find that some rationalization x you hold for god was ignorant or misinformed. That would be your failure, then, rather than a failure of the very concept of god. Best case scenario, ofc, is that you actually manage to present evidence of god..rather than "evidence".

The way you're approaching it, is to sink the ship if it won't carry you, even if it could still carry a god.

[Huggy Bear]

If "testable" is the requirement, then you must dismiss abiogenesis and evolution from a single cell organism... How's that for a start?