How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

Author: Reece101 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 131
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    Corinthians 2:5 ESV
    That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.



  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Reece101
    That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.


    God made man in his image. Seeing the variety of personalities on DART. God must be a  superphrenic.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,967
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Reece101
    Faith is an unconvincing argument. If that is all you have then no the existence of whatever god(s) you are proposing cannot be proven through debate.

  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @secularmerlin
    Faith is an unconvincing argument. If that is all you have then no the existence of whatever god(s) you are proposing cannot be proven through debate.


    The evidence for faith is undeniable. 2 billion Christians demonstrate it daily. The object of their faith is equally unequivocal if not unanimous.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Harikrish
    Most people who call themselves Christian do it solely for the community. That goes for many other “religious people” as well. Not much thought has to go into it. It’s could blind faith.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Reece101
    Most people who call themselves Christian do it solely for the community. That goes for many other “religious people” as well. Not much thought has to go into it. It’s could blind faith.
    To call things "Christian" or that you have the "truth" is already delusion and ego bc you think you know better than "GOD" ... the creator of everything. Bc guess what.. i find beauty in suffering. And god created me too. You just have to deal with it. 
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Outplayz
    To call things "Christian" or that you have the "truth" is already delusion and ego bc you think you know better than "GOD" ... the creator of everything. Bc guess what.. i find beauty in suffering. And god created me too. You just have to deal with it. 

    So God created you to find beauty in suffering? Is that a good thing?

    As an atheist I know suffering to a degree is a necessity for us to grow. But I wouldn’t say I find beauty in it. That would just be sadistic.

  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Reece101
    define suffering
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,803
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Outplayz @Reece101
    Whether it be pain or thoughts, suffering is derived from internal data processing, just the same as any other functional process.

    The stimulus might be either, externally applied or a self contained dysfunction.

    I would suggest that it is more likely that it is the manifest of suffering that might be seen to have beauty, rather than the suffering itself.

    Though perhaps beauty can be found in ones own suffering?

    As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on. 
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,127
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @zedvictor4
    "just the same as any other functional process."

    You say this so freely... same as "any function" ... so beautiful although that beauty has an extreme which is ugly on either end. 

    Human psychology is interesting to say it mildly but that's a digress. To me it's more amazing that it exists. Adding infinitely to that interest that an incorporeal word "god" exists as well. It's almost ironic. 

    As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on. 
    Who cares about the debate... really who cares about the "god" platform. If you understand an infinite possibility... whatever you call "you" is most important to that platform... whether spiritual or not that's even true. I'm just sad people are giving boundaries to these possibilities.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,803
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Outplayz
    Yep.

    What is care, other than an internal data process.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    Whether it be pain or thoughts, suffering is derived from internal data processing, just the same as any other functional process.

    The stimulus might be either, externally applied or a self contained dysfunction.

    I would suggest that it is more likely that it is the manifest of suffering that might be seen to have beauty, rather than the suffering itself.

    Though perhaps beauty can be found in ones own suffering?

    As for a god. Only a god could reconcile the god issue. Until one does the debate will carry on.

    Where would the beauty be in creating a world without suffering, where everyone was happy, right?
  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Reece101
    Where would the beauty be in creating a world without suffering, where everyone was happy, right?
    Meet some happy Indians.




  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    The Ultimate Reality is God.

    If you say The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you don't understand what that means.




  • Harikrish
    Harikrish avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 550
    2
    1
    2
    Harikrish avatar
    Harikrish
    --> @Mopac
    The Ultimate Reality is God.

    If you say The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you don't understand what that means.



    If God is the Ultimate Reality then every religion is based on Ultimate Reality.

    But we only struggle with Christianity which portrays the God of the Bible as a genocidal lunatic and his son Jesus a  blasphemous liar and a lunatic who was crucified for his blasphemous lies. Is that an ultimate reality other religions can accept?
  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,758
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    --> @Harikrish
    You don't know how we portray God. You were not even aware of The Orthodox Catholic Church until recently. If you do not know what we believe and teach, why do you make yourself an enemy of what you don't understand?

    I could just as easily come at you and your faith with a superficial understanding while boldly making half informed and condemning assertations bereft of any charity. It is very easy. And if I were to do this, we would not ever come to a real dialog.

    Now Christ is a mystery to you, but you condemn Him. In so doing, you condemn yourself, but you do not know. On the day that Christ is revealed, you will know.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,763
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Reece101
    1 Corinthians 2:5 ESV
    Corinthians 2:5 ESV
    That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

    ***

    True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,967
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @PGA2.0
    True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?

    I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,763
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @secularmerlin
    True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?

    I have always been very clear about what evidence I will and will not accept. Scientifically testable and independently verifiable. If your 'evidence' does not this criterion then no manipulation is necessary to dismiss it and no amount of manipulation will render it valid.


    Scientifically testable would eliminate origins. All science begins with logic. Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence? It appears so by your statement. Thus, it would be a waste discussing such evidence with you. 

    Definition of evidence
     (Entry 1 of 2)
    1aan outward signINDICATION
    bsomething that furnishes proofTESTIMONY specificallysomething legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
    2: one who bears witness especiallyone who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices

    If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview the evidence is more reasonable for the Christian worldview. I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview when you strip away the outer structure to get to the inner nuts and bolts of what holds it together. 

    For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance, why would you expect to see consistency and uniformity of nature? There is no reason. Strip your explanations back to the basics that it rides upon and there is no intent or purpose to such a universe, yet you consistently see it. In fact, uniformity of nature and consistency is something science is built upon. 

    1. Why should the past be the same as the present? 
    2. How do you know it is?

    Answer: You presuppose it to be. 

    If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???

    These one time events lack testability in the sense that you can't recreate them. All you can do is speculate about them (unless an omniscient God has revealed), form models based on your starting points, and operate on the assumption that the present is the key to the past.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,967
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @PGA2.0
    Scientifically testable would eliminate origins. 
    That's right we do not know our origins.

    Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence
    the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable. 
    If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview
    Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews. 
     I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs. 
    For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance
    This is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated. 
    Strip your explanations back to the basics
    What explanation are you referring to? I readily admit that I do not know our origins. To say otherwise is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. If for example I claimed that some omnipotent being had created the entire vastness of the universe for the sole purpose of using a tiny speck in one corner of a smallish galaxy as a testing ground for humans to see which of them get an eternal hallpass and which will get eternal detention that would be am argument from ignorance. 
    If there is no mind behind the universe there is no intent, no purpose. Explain to me why you look for purpose and do science???
    I do not look for purpose that is a fools errand. Instead I simply accept that in the absence of inherent purpose we must make our own. In any case it is not the concern of science to find purpose in our lives but only to explain the world around us to the best of our knowledge and based on the best availble evidence. 

     Ow did you want to talk about sciences best current cosmological models (which cannot explain the origin of the universe and do not claim to) or about the entirely separate topic of avoltronism.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,504
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Harikrish

    Meet some happy African men

  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @PGA2.0
    True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
    "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! 

    "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. 

    "Where's the dragon?" you ask. 

    "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." 

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. 

    "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." 

    Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. 

    "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." 

    You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. 

    "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." 

    And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. 

    Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

    - Carl Sagan 


    An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,763
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Reece101
    True for the believer, but how does that translate to the unbeliever who demands evidence but will accept none, or will manipulate the evidence to suit his/her purposes?
    "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
    Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[4]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! 
    ...
    An unbeliever doesn’t have to do that.
    What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?

  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 220
    0
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @PGA2.0
    What does the dragon have to do with God? Do you believe there is no verifiable evidence that confirms God exists?

    Not from what I’ve come across.

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,763
    3
    4
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @secularmerlin
    Scientifically testable would eliminate origins. 
    That's right we do not know our origins.
    Then you can't trust science about how you got here. You have to rely on faith. The question is whether it is reasonable or blind? 


    Would you deny logical or reasonable evidence
    the only evidence it is reasonable to accept is that which is independently verifiable. This is because logic is only efficacious if you have sufficient knowledge. In any case it is not reasonable or logical to accept a form of evidence which has been proven unreliable under laboratory conditions and testimonial evidence has been proven unreliable. 
    How do you independently verify origins?

    Again, you are here because of only a few possibilities of origins. Either a mindful Being is responsible or some illogical, unreasoning chance happenstance is irresponsible, or you are living an illusion. Maybe you have another possibility?  

    With a mindful being, you have intent and purpose. 
    With chance happenstance, you have neither. If that is your scenario, why are you looking for evidence? Why do you want some? Why would there be any? 

    Furthermore, why is logic, an abstract, possible if all we are is matter? How do you get the intangible from something that is only tangible?

    You first have to start with a necessary belief or truth to prove any other belief. Logic is such a necessary belief. Scientism is not.

    If you compare an atheistic and Christian worldview
    Atheism is not a world view any more than avoltronism is and christianity is not a single world view but rather many sometimes mutually exclusive and contradictory worldviews. 
    Yes, it is. It has the same basis any other belief system has. It tries to answer life's ultimate or basic questions such as why are we here? What or who are we, what does it matter, and what happens to us when we die.

     I do not believe you can make sense of an atheistic worldview
    This is exactly what I'm talking about. Atheism is not an attempt to make sense of anything. Like avoltronism it is merely the lack of belief on a particular issue. Different atheists have different reasons for their beliefs. 
    Sure it is or else you hold to no beliefs at all that makes sense. Atheism is a transfer of beliefs about existence, life's most important questions. Although you may have different beliefs you hold to a universe that is uncreated or a belief that is unsure of whether it is created but you chose to believe it is not. That in itself is a belief. No worldview hold exactly the same beliefs about all things or else we would be omniscient beings, which we are not.

    For instance, if the universe is a product of blind chance happenstance
    This is, as it has always been, a straw man. I no more believe in chance than in fate. I believe in causation because it has been demonstrated. Fate, chance, divine intervention and freewill have not been demonstrated. 
    There are only a few possibilities for why we exist. How you look at existence shapes how you look at everything else.

    There is reasonable evidence for Christianity.