There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 486

never mind
I didn't.
--> @ethang5
Not understanding is not the same as not minding.
Why are you trying to hide your responses to me? It's easy to scan threads to see if I want to comment on anyone's posts.
@disgusting

Not understanding is not the same as not minding.
You said "never mind." I didn't.

 easy to scan threads to see if I want to comment on anyone's posts.
Then what are you buttaching about?
--> @ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
--> @Christen
Where does the burden of proof lie, here? Do believers have to prove that BigFoot does exist, or do non-believers have to prove that BigFoot does not exist?
--> @Athias
Case in point: if we operate on the definition of exist which delineates having actual being whether material or spiritual, then God, by definition, "exists."
How have you determined that "god" (or any other spiritual entity) has "actual being"?

I mean, does Shiva also have "actual being"?
--> @zedvictor4
One can neither prove nor disprove something that is unprovable. 
Just like BigFoot.

There will never be closure on whether BigFoot exists.
--> @3RU7AL
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
We are dealing with principles, and poor thinkers cannot understand that.

Some sightings of bigfoot could be hoaxes, not delusions. Some could be honest mistakes. Some sightings could be deliberate falsehoods following an agenda.

It is true that you cannot know all sightings of bigfoot, and thus cannot claim delusional those sightings you have no knowledge of.

You are operating on the juvenile dichotomy of all sightings of bigfoot being either true or delusional. But those aren't the only 2 possible options.

Logic is the enemy of bias.
--> @ethang5
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional or false of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional or false is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
--> @3RU7AL
An actual sighting of something lurking in the undergrowth, irrespective of what it might or might not be, is what it is.

The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.

Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.

--> @3RU7AL
Still logically faulty, but don't worry, not everyone is able to grasp the logic.

No one can be expected to do more than what they are capable of.
--> @ethang5
>>> You you stated that God created you. I take this to mean that you believe what Genesis 1:27 states, that man was directly created by God. This, evolution would be a counter to creationism as stated in the bible.

It cannot be. Evolution says absolutely nothing about how life began. Google it and see.

The bible (Specifically Genesis 1:27) states that God created Adam and Eve directly. Evolution states that man (humans) came as a result of billions of years of gradual changes acquired over many generations of organisms. 

>>> See Urey-Miller Experiment:

Miller Urey was a failed experiment. It produced no evidence for abiogenesis and every subsequent experiment to date has failed.
Miller Urey was faulty, and later "corrected" experiments failed. In fact, Miller Urey proved again that life only comes from life. Your knowledge on abiogenesis needs serious updating.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/
Miller-Urey results were later questioned: It turns out that the gases he used (a reactive mixture of methane and ammonia) did not exist in large amounts on early Earth. Scientists now believe the primeval atmosphere contained an inert mix of carbon dioxide and nitrogen—a change that made a world of difference.
If you continued reading, you would have come upon this:
But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.
Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids. Bada presented his results this week at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.
 
https://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/letter-science-shows-flaws-in-miller-urey-experiment/article_c9f34b8c-7bdb-5413-b22b-01419d1fc44a.html
There are, however, many problems with their methodology. According to Scott M. Huse, Ph.D.’s “The Collapse of Evolution,” page 153:
 
If you are not the sort of person who will reject science because the scientist is Christian, read this.
Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
There is a lot to unravel here, so I will come back to these in a separate post.

>>> So you are making another claim, that God is omnipotent.

You keep jumping. My claim was it is  logical. Deal with that first. Given the definition of omnipotent, Is it logical for there to be 2 omnipotent entities?
Your argument here looks like this:
P: God is omnipotent.
Q: Therefore, there is only one God.
You need to prove P before you can get to Q.

>>> If that were the case, then how would you explain the omnipotence paradox?

And the omnipotence paradox is explained by the fact that the world is full of poor thinkers and people with low IQ.
Can you elaborate on this?

>>> You believe that the bible is credible enough that you directly took quotes out of it to answer two of my questions, ergo, you believe that the quotes are true in and of themselves.

I believe the quotes are true. 
Ok, so you believe the quotes provided in the bible are true. 
 
>>> You stated that it was credible (that the content inside it is true enough to quote directly)

No sir. The contents inside it is credible enough to quote directly.
“Are the contents inside the bible credible enough to quote directly?”
“No sir, they are credible enough to quote directly.”
Is it yes or no?

YOU asked about credibility. Now you want my answer to be about truth.
The bible is talking about how things are the way they are, and how they got there. That entails truth. If a source is trying to describe reality (in this case, the bible) is going to be credible (to be believed), then it should have some way for it to be believed. It should have something supporting it.

You claimed: 
[The bible is credible because] it has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
You still have yet to support these claims.

Please stop providing beliefs for me and ignoring things I've said that contradict your provided belief. "In and of themselves" is your substituted lie that ignores my stated reasons for why the bible is credible.
You literally just said you believe the quotes in the bible are true. The reason you stated the bible was credible was because many people believe it. Since the bible describes, in truth, why things are the way they are (according to you), it would be a factual text. In order for factual texts to be credible, they would need to have truth to them. Otherwise the bible is nothing more than a work of fiction. 

Legal courts use wetness testimonies everyday to show credibility.
“Wetness testimonies” lol.
The reason why witness testimonies work in court is because they have either been at the scene of the crime, have connections to the parties involved, or are experts (doctors, coroners, etc.). None of these apply to the question of whether or not God exists.

I answered the question you asked. If you wanted to know why the bible was true, you should have asked that.
Okay, then how is the bible true?

Just because many people believe a source does not make it matter-of-fact.
Lol. Trying to hide the silly semantical game you're playing, so you use the weird term, "matter-of-fact" here. You could not say, "...does not make it true", for that would expose your fakery. Many people believing a source makes it more credible. That is a fact your word play cannot defeat.
I’ve already addressed this earlier in this post.

>>> How much experience do you have in having discussions with me? Very little.

Everyone likes to think they are unique, but you are pretty run-the-mill. I can almost predict your questions and responses. Do you know how many times I've had to educate some yokel about the debunked Miller/Urey experiments?
Are you and Athias the same person? You and PGA2.0? You and EtrnlVw? 

Neither atheism nor agnosticism are religions.
When did I ever say they were? We were talking about the differences between Atheism and Agnosticism, and that’s what the website I linked was talking about as well. The title of the website is completely irrelevant to this point. 








--> @ethang5
>>> I find it funny how both you and Athias were adamantly insisting that 3RU7AL substantiate his claims, yet when I ask you two to do the same, you both refuse to do so.

We substantiated. We just refused to do it the way you wanted. 
Tell me what part of these responses is a substantiation:
 
>>> 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?

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

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

>>> 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.
 
But I told you my views. If you think something else is credible, that is your business.

>>> You were the one who made the claim (there are plenty of non-biblical records of God appearing in any location), therefore, you are the one who has to substantiate it.

Nonsense. You asked if there were, I said there were. You can look it up, but I am under no obligation to offer it to you. It is not part of my argument and matters not one bit to me.
 
>>> It's not enough to make generalized statements. In order to substantiate your statement here, you need to provide specific examples.

Like most liberal atheists, you are confused and thinking I am seeking validation from you, or that you are somehow vetting me. My answer was enough for me. Accept or reject it.


--> @ethang5
You jump as soon as a question is answered, never acknowledging that your comments leading to the question were wrong.
Where was I wrong?
 
This is not an interrogation or me seeking validation from you, and what you find funny is immaterial.
You're right. It’s not an interrogation or “you seeking validation from me”. I’m simply asking you to substantiate the claims you made. 
 
You have asked all your questions and have not been able to show illogic or inconsistency, so now you will make some vague claim that I refuse to substantiate my claims. Yet I answered every question you asked.
I can’t work with vague, generalized claims that you don’t substantiate. If you don’t provide me with any examples to back up your assertions (like how there are thousands of non-biblical instances of Jesus appearing in a certain location), then I can use Hitchens’ Razor to dismiss it entirely. 
 
The topic of the thread and spirituality have been forgotten by you as you meander with never ending questions who’s answers you pretend are positive claims that need to be immediately substantiated, while the original claim prompting your question is ignored and forgotten.
Topic/claim of this thread: There'll never be closure on whether God exists
 
The original claim of the thread is that the question of “Does God exist?” will never be resolved. My main points haven’t deviated from this. You claim that God exists. That’s a positive claim. I’m asking you how you can prove that God exists, to which you still haven’t done so.
 
You wanted Athias and I to play your little atheist game of being the validator and we being the supplicants seeking your approval.
 
We didn't. Sorry. This is the real world.
No. I want you to substantiate your claims. Simple as that.

--> @ethang5
>>>You’re right. There will never be closure on this issue. It’s like trench warfare: completely static, with neither side willing to budge.

Budge on what? Logic? This is not a negotiation. Truth is not arrived at by consensus.
That’s not what I meant. Sure, you have your position and I have mine, but at the end of the day, we will both come out with more wisdom and understanding. This is what discussions were meant for. However, what debates about religion often boil down to is a slogging match between theists and atheists. Each side's stances are basically calcified, with no room to expand their mindsets whatsoever. In this sense, we will never have closure, for no one is willing to listen to the other side. 
 
Here was my first post in this thread to Fallaneze.
 
You are letting yourself be fooled by an illusion.
 
For very many people, the question does get settled. But new people are always coming into the system.
 
Closure happens to individuals, not to groups. Your implication is that anything short of total and instantaneous closure is not closure."
 
Very many people find closure and truly know the answer. Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
 
Neither he, nor anyone else who responded to me addressed my question.
 
Now here you are, equating "closure" to your personal satisfaction of how well your questions are answered.
 
So, again, Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
Reaching one's own "personal closure" isn't finding the "true answer". It's simply finding your own personal opinion on this issue. Opinions aren’t facts, and they certainly can’t be used to find the “truth” (whatever that might be). 
 
Also, since when did I equate “closure” to “my own personal satisfaction with how my questions are answered”?

--> @ethang5
In the main time, people will continue becoming theists by the millions, finding enough closure to reach a decision.
Just to burst your bubble:

--> @3RU7AL
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional or false of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional or false is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Some body's observed bigfoot.

Some many humans observed a finite Universe.

Finite = integrity ergo closure and resolution as a whole

Infinite = lack of integrity i.e no closure, no resolution ergo no wholeness involved

God as infinite divinity is not resolved

God as Universe as is resolved as a wholistic, sum-total set of finites

" G "od and/or " U "niverse is the most comprehensively wholistic set as the Cosmic Trinity

..............1} metaphysical-1 { spirit-1 }, mind/intellect/concepts, ex concepts of Space, God, Universe, Dogs, Watermelons ergo that which is not a Space and has no energy, no mass, no spin, no color no taste etc

.............conceptual line-of-demarcation.............................................

...............2} eternally existent, macro-infinite, non-occupied space that embraces/surrounds the following integrity

................3} eternally existent, finite, occupied Space Universe

Then we have the subset of trinities to the above #1 and #3.  #2 above has  no subsets.

Biological big foots falls in catagory #1 above much like unicorns fall into the metaphysical-1 concepts catagory and one or more of its trinity subsets.





--> @PressF4Respect
Evolution states that man (humans) came...
From where?

If you continued reading, you would have come upon this:
Check the date. Even scientists don't refer to Miller/Urey any more. Science moved on since you left high school biology......

Errr, you are out of high school right?

Your argument here looks like this:
P: God is omnipotent.
Q: Therefore, there is only one God.
You need to prove P before you can get to Q.
No sir. That is where you want to jump to. You asked, "How do I know there is only one god?" My answer is that it is logically impossible for more than one God to exist.

You can't deal with that, so you want to jump to omniscience. I asked you a question. You claimed to be the kind of person who answers questions. So far, you haven't been.

I asked. "Do you think, given the definition of omnipotent, that its logical for more than one omnipotent being to exist?" If you keep dodging my questions, I will dismiss you as a fraud who only wants to ask questions while running away from having to defend his own positions.

Can you elaborate on this?
I can but I won't. It is not pertinent to my argument, and I will not be diverted into "elaboration" every time you bring up some silly tangent.

Ok, so you believe the quotes provided in the bible are true. 
Of course. I also believe they are credible, which is what you asked about.

“Are the contents inside the bible credible enough to quote directly?”
Is it yes or no?
I asked you to stop the silly word play. Anything can be quoted. There are no conditions on what can be quoted. So your "credible enough to be..." is tautological nonsense. Try it on a newbie.

That entails truth. 
It does, but you didn't ask about truth, did you?

You still have yet to support these claims.
You have yet to challenge them. You so zeroed in on the billions giving it credibility, you completely forgot my main reasons.

The reason you stated the bible was credible was because many people believe it.
Untrue. I said that many people believing the bible to be credible lends the bible credibility. I said nothing about what or why I believe. Either way, you have ignored my main reasons I find the bible credible.

Since the bible describes, in truth, why things are the way they are (according to you), it would be a factual text.
You asked about credibility. I answered you. Are you dissatisfied with my answer? Is that why you have ignored the meat of it and focused on the witness testimonies?

None of these apply to the question of whether or not God exists.
But they do apply to whether the bible has credibility. And that was your question, not whether God exists.

Okay, then how is the bible true?
What do you mean? Why is the bible true? Why is 2+3=5 true? It conforms to reality.

Tell me what part of these responses is a substantiation:
As soon as you tell me where 3RU7AL's substantiation is for the claim he made first, the claim you defended.

Where was I wrong?
Credible does not necessarily mean true. 2 simultaneous omnipotent beings are illogical. Witnesses do lend credibility. Evolution says absolutely nothing about abiogenesis. There is no evidence for abiogenesis whatsoever. Miller/Urey is debunked bad science.

I’m simply asking you to substantiate the claims you made. 
I have answered every question you've 
asked. That you cannot attack my answers is not a fault of mine.

I can’t work with vague, generalized claims that you don’t substantiate.
That seems to be your problem. My answers were succinct. But I will not be drawn into the childish game of being challenged to support everything YOU ask about. 

If you don’t provide me with any examples to back up your assertions (like how there are thousands of non-biblical instances of Jesus appearing in a certain location),
You asked if there were, I answered yes. That in no way obligates me to verify it for you. It isn't part of my argument and I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not.

Further, it was not appearances of Jesus, it was appearances of God. Precision is how we avoid confusion later.

If you were to ask me if butterflies are insects and I said yes, I am not instantly obligated to prove to you butterflies are insects. What do I care whether you believe it? You brought up butterflies, I didn't.

It is a tactic of poor thinkers to derail others down rabbit holes because they have weak arguments themselves.

then I can use Hitchens’ Razor to dismiss it entirely. 
You will always be free to dismiss anything you want. What you lack is the power to make me jump through your hoops. I will choose my answers, you can accept or reject them, but they will be my answers, no approval needed from you.
--> @PressF4Respect
You claim that God exists. That’s a positive claim.
So is the claim that there will never be closure. The claim made first should be the first substantiated.

I’m asking you how you can prove that God exists, to which you still haven’t done so.
The question is not whether I can prove God exists, but whether God exists. And if it is true that God exists, whether I can prove it or not doesn't the fact that he exists.

My claim was that people arrive at closure all the time, thus the threads claim is incorrect. You seem to agree that there will never be closure, yet you've dodged my question on the topic and want to now focus on some subsequent claim. Why?

No. I want you to substantiate your claims. Simple as that.
And my substantiation will be decided by me, not you. You may reject it, but it will not bend to your demand that it be how you like.

In this sense, we will never have closure, for no one is willing to listen to the other side. 
Interesting you can post this and still not be willing to listen to the other side. I answer every question so that my opponent knows I listened. When I dismiss a claim of yours, it isn't because I didn't listen, it's because the claim was illogical.

You are using "listen" the liberal way. Unless I agree with you, I'm not listening.

Reaching one's own "personal closure" isn't finding the "true answer". It's simply finding your own personal opinion on this issue. Opinions aren’t facts, and they certainly can’t be used to find the “truth” (whatever that might be).
Then I wish you'd shout this out to every liberal out there. But everyone has only his senses to go by. The thread did not say everyone would never find truth, it said there would never be closure. And it did not qualify "closure".

Just to burst your bubble:
I have no bubbles you can burst.

The actual numbers of Christians worldwide is rising, not falling. But His Royal Majesty, King Jesus told us 2,000 years ago that the number of Christians would one day fall to near zero.

So what? If the large number of people believing Christianity does not make it true, then people leaving doesn't make it false either.

And if you aren't attacking the truth of Christianity, what does it matter how many believe?

It isn't a fallacy when you do it right?







My problem with the bible is that it is riddled with contradictions that go against logic and deductive reasoning. Then, people try and defend/justify the various inconsistecies and contradictions with various excuses.
--> @zedvictor4
An actual sighting of something lurking in the undergrowth, irrespective of what it might or might not be, is what it is.

The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.

Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.
Especially if your description is logically incoherent.

Is your god a boy god?  WTF.
--> @Christen
My problem with the bible is that it is riddled with contradictions that go against logic and deductive reasoning.
What is your best example?

Hopefully you will do better than Stephen who posts fake verses and refuses to defend his claims.

Then, people try and defend/justify the various inconsistecies and contradictions with various excuses.
Well, if you call a reasonable explanation an excuse, it's no wonder you have a problem. Here is an example.

Contradiction claim:
The genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke are different, thus a contradiction.

Explanation:
The genealogies are supposed to be different. One goes through Joseph, and the other through Mary. Unless they were brother and sister, their genealogies cannot have the same people in them. Thus, there is no contradiction.

Questions:
*Do you still think this is a contradiction? 
*Is the explanation an "excuse"?
*Is a genealogy that goes through Joseph supposed to have the same people as in a genealogy that goes through Mary?
*Do you think the people calling this a contradiction know that genealogies of non-siblings cannot be and should not be, identical?
--> @zedvictor4
The delusion is assuming without proof, that it is bigfoot.
Agreed, but mistaking what one has as proof is not delusion, it's just a mistake.

Similarly, continued belief in a god of which there is no real proof is also delusional.
Would you call your belief in abiogenesis a delusion? Why not?
--> @ethang5
My problem with the bible is that it is riddled with contradictions that go against logic and deductive reasoning.
What is your best example?

Hopefully you will do better than Stephen who posts fake verses and refuses to defend his claims.
Wait... so you're asking Christen for an example of a contradiction in the bible, yet when I ask you to provide a non-biblical example of God appearing in a specific location (which you have claimed that there are thousands), or to explain this:
[The bible] has a long line of custodial accuracy, it has proven correct geographically, historically, and culturally. There are hundreds of ancient copies of it found in various places that self-verify, and it's effect on human history is unmatched.
...you refuse to do so. Why should he provide examples for his claim when you refuse to do the same for yours?
@PressF

Wait... so you're asking Christen for an example of a contradiction in the bible,...
Yes. I can do that. Christen says there are contradictions in the bible. I contend there are none. Both our claims cannot be true. They are mutually exclusive. I have an interest in showing his claim wrong.

...yet when I ask you to provide a non-biblical example of God appearing in a specific location (which you have claimed that there are thousands)...
I did not positively claim this. You asked and I answered. Non-biblical examples of God appearing in a specific location do not affect my claim at all. And both those examples and my claim could be true, they are not mutually exclusive. I have no interest in proving that claim true as my claim could be true even if non-biblical appearances of God were false.

Read what I said. If I allow you to derail me simply by answering a question, I would be no better than a noob. I don't care if you believe or disbelieve non-biblical examples of God appearing in a specific location, and thus have no interest in giving you examples of something that isn't part of my argument, or pertinent to it.

or to explain this: ...you refuse to do so. 
Untrue. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one. You then asked that I explain my explanation. How far regressed, in your mind, would I have to go before it would be OK for me to decline your requests for explanations of explanations?

Why should he provide examples for his claim when you refuse to do the same for yours?
That choice is his and has nothing to do with you. I answered every question of yours. I offered explanations. If you aren't satisfied, I couldn't care less.

My purpose is to answer correctly and truthfully, my purpose isn't to satisfy you personally.

This is just a heads up. If you dodge my  questions in this post, your questions will be ignored. The advice of my experience to repeat is proving to have been right.