There&#39;ll never be closure on whether God exists

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:06PM

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:06PM

-->

@Athias

And it's important to note that a false description =/= false object.

If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?

I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...

And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...

And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...

#272

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:08PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:08PM

-->

@3RU7AL

You're right.

Just like BigFoot.

Yes.

#273

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:10PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:10PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,
Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.

Where did this "perfectly logical god" come from? Did it create itself?

...and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe,
At least at this particular moment.

Unless we can figure out how to observe something at faster than the speed of light, no.

...we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not.
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.

We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.

True, but this isn't addressed to a particular god, only "god" in the general sense.

#274

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:12PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:12PM

-->

@Athias

p: I can believe X
q: therefore, I do believe X.

Also, whether you believe something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it actually exists.

#275

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:17PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:17PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

In all of the available body or facts of information we have regarding the existence of god, we don't have any evidence that definitively, and completely, prove any one deity. If we did, then everyone would believe that god/those gods that the evidence proved the existence of. Since this is not the case, we can say that there is no evidence for any particular god/gods.

"Our" not having the evidence is not the same as "there is no evidence." The latter is clearly ontological. You'd have to inform and substantiate that claim. But, I'm not interested in engaging beyond this point.

In other words, it's not an excuse to dodge my point.

I'm not dodging your point. I'm choosing to not respond.

Fine.

p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.

Exactly.

If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?

I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...

And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...

And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...

I believe you've answered your own question.

#276

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:20PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:20PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Also, whether you believe something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it actually exists.

No, it isn't. Belief is a component of cognition; cognition is a component of perception; perception is a component of subjective existence.

#277

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:23PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:23PM

-->

@Athias

"Our" not having the evidence is not the same as "there is no evidence." The latter is clearly ontological. You'd have to inform and substantiate that claim.

<br>

"Evidence" is the information that is available to us. See the definition.

But, I'm not interested in engaging beyond this point.

Fine with me.

I'm not dodging your point. I'm choosing to not respond.

Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.

Fine.

p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
Exactly.

Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.

If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?

I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...

And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...

And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...
I believe you've answered your own question.

I didn't say this. 3RU7AL did.

#278

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:25PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 09:25PM

-->

@Athias

No, it isn't. Belief is a component of cognition; cognition is a component of perception; perception is a component of subjective existence.

This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then.

#279

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:26PM

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:26PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,
Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.
Where did this "perfectly logical god" come from? Did it create itself?

It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = god

#280

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:37PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?

I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...

And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...

And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...

I believe you've answered your own question.

#281

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:38PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:38PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.

Assume away.

Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.

It's your argument. I did not invoke Hitler. I merely corrected the logical structure.

I didn't say this. 3RU7AL did.

You're right.

This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then.

Everything we perceive must exist. This is irrefutable.

#282

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:41PM

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:41PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.

We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
True, but this isn't addressed to a particular god, only "god" in the general sense.

That works great for a DEISTIC god.

But it's important to remember that DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

Every religion that believes in a holy-lawmaker believes in a logically incoherent description of gods.

#283

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:48PM

3

4

9

11.25.2019 09:48PM

-->

@Athias

If I told you that I had a BlimGlorp, which I describe to you as a ten-story-tall, 700 ton elephant sculpture in my room, and when you came over, you found that it was actually a small plastic toy that could fit in the palm of your hand, would you consider my original claim "true" (with a false or inaccurate description)?

I mean, I did indeed have a BlimGlorp, so...

And it was 10 stories tall (if you compare it to a miniature skyscraper)...

And it was 700 tons (if you use purely imaginary measurements)...
I believe you've answered your own question.

So are you suggesting that your idea of "truth" can include a false description?

#284

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.25.2019 09:53PM

3

9

11.25.2019 09:53PM

-->

@3RU7AL

So are you suggesting that your idea of "truth" can include a false description?

Not necessarily. Only that "truth" can be subject to perspective. As you so aptly demonstrated, changing the "metric" changed its "truth."

#285

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.25.2019 10:05PM

3

4

9

11.25.2019 10:05PM

-->

@Athias

Not necessarily. Only that "truth" can be subject to perspective. As you so aptly demonstrated, changing the "metric" changed its "truth."

Now you know why I like to nail down those DEFINITIONS.

#286

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 10:36PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 10:36PM

-->

@Athias

Ok, then I will assume that you do not have any evidence to begin with.
Assume away.

If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.

Either you are seriously messed up, or the syllogism presented holds no weight whatsoever.
It's your argument. I did not invoke Hitler. I merely corrected the logical structure.

Yes, and I'm showing that it's either useless or horrible via reductio ad absurdum

"This means an infinite number of things exist. Ok then."
Everything we perceive must exist. This is irrefutable.

What about the things people perceive during hallucinations?

#287

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 10:51PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 10:51PM

-->

@3RU7AL

That works great for a DEISTIC god.

But it's important to remember that DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

I’m very aware of this.

Every religion that believes in a holy-lawmaker believes in a logically incoherent description of gods.

This doesn’t mean that there is 100% no god.

#288

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.25.2019 11:15PM

3

8

11

11.25.2019 11:15PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = god

This would work, if the premises are substantiated. They’re not.

#289

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.26.2019 07:07AM

3

6

11.26.2019 07:07AM

-->

@3RU7AL

@Athias

@PressF4Respect

Athias was right, this is sophistry.

A claim was made, when the claim maker was asked to substantiate his claim, he ridiculously replied that asking him to support his claim meant we must believe something counter to his claim! And anything counter to his claim is on its face, illogical. He then said all claimants must support their claims!

All this while, his claim has sat unsupported.

First, we could believe the same thing, but disagree on the reason given for why it is correct. Thus a request to substantiate (say bigfoot) does not necessarily mean the one requesting support disbelieves bigfoot.

All of that is moot anyway, as your burden to provide proof of your claim has nothing to do with our beliefs about the subject of your claim.

So, the bottom line. Do you still support your claim?

"All spirituality is delusional."

If you still do, can you substantiate it?

Until you do, neither Athias or I have to support any claim or counter claim, and certainly not until we make a claim or counter claim.

Also, neither of us have claimed or implied that you are wrong, we are simply asking for why you think you are right.

If you cannot logically support your claim, we can throw it out as unsubstantiated rubbish.

@Press4

You assume because you don't know, nobody knows. Speak only for yourself.

If you consider that the Christian views God as a living, conscious, person, instead of thinking of Him as a "force" or "law" of nature, you would understand the Christian position much better.

So on our own, we cannot perceive God, but that in no way means God cannot make Himself known to us.

But more and more you will find Christians reluctant to get dragged into a "Does God Exist?" debate on every thread, because we sometimes we want to debate other things.

#290

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.26.2019 07:19AM

3

8

11

11.26.2019 07:19AM

-->

@ethang5

Ok, let’s start over with the main question:

Does god exist?

Follow up question:

Who is that god?

Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?

Hopefully you'll be able to go further than Athias.

#291

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.26.2019 12:20PM

3

6

11.26.2019 12:20PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

Ok, let’s start over with the main question:

Does god exist?

Did you even read my post?

If you want to start yet another lame thread about Does God Exist, do it on the religion board.

The main question in this thread had nothing to do with God.

#292

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.26.2019 01:30PM

3

4

9

11.26.2019 01:30PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

It's AXIOMATIC. (IFF) god = infinite (AND) god = exists (THEN) exists = god
This would work, if the premises are substantiated. They’re not.

It's a conditional statement.

If you believe that an infinite god exists, then everything that exists must be part of this infinite god.

#293

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.26.2019 01:36PM

3

4

9

11.26.2019 01:36PM

-->

@ethang5

(IFF) spirituality = belief in entities that are not scientifically observable

(AND) belief in entities that are not scientifically observable = delusional (THEN)...

"All spirituality is delusional."

#294

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

11.26.2019 02:31PM

3

9

11.26.2019 02:31PM

-->

@PressF4Respect

If you expect others to substantiate their claims, then you should be able to substantiate your own.

I am able; engaging you on the subject is a different matter. I choose to not respond to your supplication. How many times must that be stated?

Yes, and I'm showing that it's either useless or horrible via reductio ad absurdum

You can use the reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical device in expressing your feelings (i.e. it's horrible) or a logical one, for which you'd have to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the conclusion. Since your feelings are irrelevant, you'd have to employ the latter to make your point. Thus far, you have not done so.

What about the things people perceive during hallucinations?

Everything one perceives must exist; this is irrefutable. One cannot interact with the non-existent in any shape or form; the non-existent does not provide any information toward or description of its being because it does not exist. If "X" didn't exist, then it would be impossible for one to know "X" didn't exist, because it does not exist. Hence, everything one perceives must exist because it's impossible to perceive that which doesn't exist.

#295

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.26.2019 02:37PM

3

6

11.26.2019 02:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.

..entities that are not scientifically observable = delusional

This is clearly Illogical. Everything outside our ability to observe cannot be delusions.

Technology changes, when technology advances to a point where something previously unobservable becomes observable, does that thing suddenly stop being a delusion?

You have tailored you "definition" to fit your claim.

#296

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9

11.26.2019 02:45PM

3

4

9

11.26.2019 02:45PM

-->

@ethang5

Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.

Please substantiate your claim.

I'm willing to entertain any definition of "spirituality" you personally prefer.

#297

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:49PM

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:49PM

-->

@Athias

I am able; engaging you on the subject is a different matter. I choose to not respond to your supplication.

Sure bud, whatever you say.

You can use the reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical device in expressing your feelings (i.e. it's horrible) or a logical one, for which you'd have to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the conclusion. Since your feelings are irrelevant, you'd have to employ the latter to make your point. Thus far, you have not done so.

I can believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramic

Therefore I do believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramic

Everything one perceives must exist; this is irrefutable. One cannot interact with the non-existent in any shape or form; the non-existent does not provide any information toward or description of its being because it does not exist. If "X" didn't exist, then it would be impossible for one to know "X" didn't exist, because it does not exist. Hence, everything one perceives must exist because it's impossible to perceive that which doesn't exist.

Do you know how a brain works?

#298

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:50PM

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:50PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It's a conditional statement.

If you believe that an infinite god exists, then everything that exists must be part of this infinite god.

Fair enough

#299

Debates: 10

Posts: 3,159

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:58PM

3

8

11

11.26.2019 02:58PM

-->

@ethang5

You assume because you don't know, nobody knows. Speak only for yourself.

God exists outside of the observable universe. Unless you are able to observe what is beyond the observable universe, you will not be able to observe god.

If you consider that the Christian views God as a living, conscious, person, instead of thinking of Him as a "force" or "law" of nature, you would understand the Christian position much better.

Is this living, conscious God inside the universe? If so, then where? If not, then he is unobservable.

So on our own, we cannot perceive God, but that in no way means God cannot make Himself known to us.

Has God made Himself known to us in any way outside of the bible?

But more and more you will find Christians reluctant to get dragged into a "Does God Exist?" debate on every thread, because we sometimes we want to debate other things.

No one is stopping you from debating other things.

#300

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,744

3

4

9