-->
@EtrnlVw
OBVIOUSLY GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU THINK THIS WORLD IS IMPERFECT IT INDICATES THAT (EITHER) GOD IS IMPERFECTGo back and read the OP.
YOU REQUESTED A POSITION AND EVIDENCE AND REASON.
I HAVE PROVIDED ALL THREE.
Yes, No, I don't know
Posts
Total:
165
-->
@3RU7AL
can you repeat the question ?
Do you believe God exists...yes, no or I don't know? one of those three would be your answer. Next, give reason for your answer. I'm not presenting any proposal for who or what God is or is not.
I don't believe God exists....and this is why...
I do believe God exists and this is why...
I don't know and here is why I don't know....
-->
@Sum1hugme
I did already answer that.
…Except you didn’t, all you did was talk about me and that’s not answering the question.
-->
@FLRW
Those that align with Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye
I have a mind of my own thank you very much.
-->
@Tarik
I have a mind of my own thank you very much.
Exactly, he just wants to present a few nitwits that happen to hold Theistic beliefs and then just lump all Theists in with a category of nitwits. I wonder if him, being a nitwit should be categorized with all atheists. I doubt all atheists want to be categorized as nitwits.
-->
@FLRW
Or that those in line with the second group spend 8 years in prison or die from cancer
I pointed out a major flaw, considering that my views are closest to Einstein's on your list in terms of god.
Einstein believed that a god is probably real and is simply unconcerned with morality, explaining why bad things can happen to good people and covering a significant flaw in the popular version of God being particularly benevolent.
He found that certain sheer randomness at the core of reality (quantum level) vs the total lack of chaos on the bigger scheme of things (general laws of physics such as Newton's which are false at the quantum level) implied that there is an intelligent entity defying entropy's randomness to keep certain things constant for reality to be functioning as it is.
He didn't say this all in one direct quote, it is implied that this is how he reached god being real and deistic based on all his findings and quotes combined.
-->
@RationalMadman
In 1954, one year before he died Albert Einstein said 'The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses'.
Don't go by what he said in 1929.
-->
@EtrnlVw
What correlation? I'm suspecting a false analogy fallacy.
I dont hold a philosophical position about the origin of the universe. It looks like It was probably the big bang.
-->
@FLRW
Why not? You do understand what context is yes? In this later quote he refers to the word as in when others generally use it.
Do you only judge someone by their beliefs later or does a younger self and predominant amount of lifespan not amount to anything?
Unlike you, I factored in his whole life and all quotes. If you do that, it is far more probable that the term 'God' as most Theists used it back then had grown to irritate him especially as it was becoming a tool to silence physicists (as it had always been) and he wasn't a Christian (and was a secular Jew, ethnically) he was a deistic type of agnostic.
-->
@RationalMadman
An atheist biologist, P.Z. Myers, unloads on Christianity by citing several questions about nature that he believes atheists answer better than Christians.
Myers:
Some of us, like me, are atheists because religion provides nothing we want, is unsatisfactory at addressing what we do care about, and is really, really bad at answering a very human question, “Why?” Instead, they prefer to make tirades against the other, ignoring their own failings, and pretending that the questions they ignore have been answered.You want to know what those New Atheists, who are the same as the Old Atheists, are all about? We actually have important questions. These question [sic] will not and cannot be answered by religious apologists. The process of exploring them honestly is exactly what leads to atheism, so they have to avoid them.
I think Einstein would have agreed with him.
What correlation?
Correlating the products of the universe with intelligence. Correlating the processes within the universe with agency, thought and mind. Do you have a problem with that?
I'm suspecting a false analogy fallacy.
Lol, sure you will. Whenever someone makes a legit point you guys invoke some nonsense "fallacy" instead of dealing with the content.
I dont hold a philosophical position about the origin of the universe.
Looks to me like you're an atheist. I'm guessing a materialist? yes, that's a philosophical position. So is atheism at that.
It looks like It was probably the big bang.
What could have initiated a Big Bang?
-->
@FLRW
Well, I don't really care what you think tbph.
You're just another atheist who feels their absence of belief in a deity gives them an advantage, while deistic believers have a similar advantage without having the disadvantage of both total lack of purpose and total obscurity at the core of our reality-comprehension.
If you are curious, I explained a few times months ago about what I think happened and is at the core of reality. Basically a random variable (true or not-true for each possible aspect) generator runs at all times and used to randomly determine all things about reality/realities (it has only one of itself, but can/could run multiple realities at once of course all within the true overarching reality of itself as that thing is the only real thing that always has been and will be).
At some point, it reached a slight glitch/paradox ('at some point' because according to me, time isn't contained inside reality, even this ultimate thing runs along time, not outside the time continuum). The paradoxical glitch is that it set 'is true' to a conscious entity's ability to control the random variable generator.
At that point, you can imagine just how much could change. I predict the first thing this entity picked was 'is true' to 'knows everything' for itself. That would give it total control instantly.
The reason for entropy still occuring at the quantum level is that I presume the god (not the generator but the conscious deity persona) became bored with everything being too predictable and left some variables random. That's basically as far as I've gotten and reckon it's as far as I'll ever get into the 'how' of my theology. The rest is more 'what' and 'why'.
-->
@Tarik
See #31 and #33 for the answer to the question you said I didn't answer.
-->
@FLRW
Those that align with Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye
Sorry, but I don't follow those two whackos at all. Hoiw do you figure?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Look I usually don't like going back and forth in forums, do you want to debate the existence of God?
-->
@EtrnlVw
The default position would be to make no determination.
I haven't made one. I stated my position that it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist than to believe he does. That's not a determination of what is true, it's a determination of which of two options more aligns with reason.
I went on the use the tooth ferry example to make my point, but you focused on the absurdity of the example rather than the point.
Between three positions, the default position is generally the middle. Between two positions there is no middle, so you have to pick one as your default. When it comes to belief, that entails three potential positions (I believe X, I believe not X, I don't hold any belief). But when it comes to how we live our lives, there are only two (I live my life as if there were a god, I live my life as if there were no god's). So when I say 'between the two' I am making reference to the fact that in this case, I have to pick one.
However, both correlation and indication ARE evidence
They lack indication. In order to claim X is indicative of Y you need an example of Y. Without an example of Y to compare X to you're just guessing.
-->
@Sum1hugme
See #31 and #33 for the answer to the question you said I didn't answer.
Both those “answers” were centered around me when the question was directed towards you.
-->
@Tarik
That's ridiculous. My answer to you applies to everyone. Imagination doesn't equal reality. That applies to everyone including you.
-->
@Sum1hugme
My answer to you applies to everyone.
Except it doesn’t because your “answer” said nothing about everyone and only me.
Imagination doesn't equal reality.
Clearly you like going in circles so I’ll bite with the same retort I’ve been using to that, how do you know it’s imaginary?
-->
@FLRW
He said 'the word God' he did not say god. You don't understand context and have ignored his entire life before that quote, much like you ignore everything leading towards an intelligent designer simply because diseases and encephalitis exist. How do you know that the designer didn't want pain and natural selection?
If reality weren't intelligently designed, it would be extremely (99.9999...%) probable that we'd have things disappearing and reapparing rapidly, chaos everywhere, a green leaf becoming a brown hamster just like that, for instance, there'd be absolutely no viability for laws of physics, biology and chemistry to consistently be maintained... Yet they are.
-->
@EtrnlVw
What could have initiated a Big Bang?
NOUMENON
-->
@EtrnlVw
I do believe God exists and this is why...
BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAME FROM SOMETHING AND THAT SOMETHING IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "GOD" (OR NOUMENON)
-->
@Bones
Look I usually don't like going back and forth in forums, do you want to debate the existence of God?
Step ONE, define EXIST
Step TWO, define GOD
Step THREE, compare and contrast the two
-->
@RationalMadman
In 2005 Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst popularised the term "incompetent design" (a play on "intelligent design"), to describe aspects of nature seen as flawed in design.
-->
@FLRW
Nice avoidance of what I said.
-->
@Double_R
I haven't made one. I stated my position that it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist than to believe he does. That's not a determination of what is true
So your position is that God does not exist? if you don't want to commit to that, simply say you have no answer. Considering you're an Atheist it is clear you have made a stance. If we go back to the OP, there's three options. Either you believe so, do not believe or you simply don't know. Saying you believe it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist as a way to avoid the options doesn't work either, you're still not choosing the option that you don't know and there is no fourth option. You first answered no "in most cases", even though I made no reference to any particular religious idea.
it's a determination of which of two options more aligns with reason.
That will be the point of this thread. As of yet, there's no reason for you or I to believe that it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist. I'm a man of reason, and I cannot say that is anywhere near true.
I went on the use the tooth ferry example to make my point, but you focused on the absurdity of the example rather than the point.
Lol, because I'm not here to compare your absurd perceptions with a solid proposition. If my child asked me if the tooth ferry exists of course I would say no, that's not what I would say about the existence of God. Lets just stay on track with things that make actual sense and are worth considering, aside from that I'm not making the claim there is no evidence for God, to me it's not a real comparison.
I believe there is very good reason to believe God exists, from different angles not just one.
Between three positions, the default position is generally the middle
God exists on the left, I don't know in the middle, God does not exist on the right.
Between two positions there is no middle, so you have to pick one as your default.
The default position is that you have no position, that would be "I don't know".
When it comes to belief, that entails three potential positions (I believe X, I believe not X, I don't hold any belief).
Agree, I thought that's where we were.
But when it comes to how we live our lives, there are only two (I live my life as if there were a god, I live my life as if there were no god's). So when I say 'between the two' I am making reference to the fact that in this case, I have to pick one.
This does not have to be complicated.
They lack indication.
How does it lack indication? products are a clear indication of intelligence. Are you saying that you don't believe or see that the universe can be seen as a product of intelligence? you don't see a correlation between the processes that occur within the universe and thought? in any way shape or form? is that correct? tell me what is lacking.
In order to claim X is indicative of Y you need an example of Y. Without an example of Y to compare X to you're just guessing.
First of all, I don't need to guess. I'm sure of my beliefs. What I'm doing with correlation is giving YOU something worth considering for why we are saying God exists. My beliefs are based on a lifetime of observation and experience but I don't expect you to be worried about that. Here, we want to correlate the works of the universe to help you see that they are associated with agency. It's simply a starting point, not proof, not fact, not anything other than a logical thought game to get you from "I don't believe God exists" to "well...maybe there's something worth considering".
Evidence is defined as an indication, and if there is an indication the products of the universe can be correlated with intelligence then there is something to bite...there IS evidence.
So instead of feeding you religious dogma I want it to be clear to you there is sufficient reason to consider God exists. The counter position to this would be to accept that inanimate forces can begin to produce intelligent results as well as animated features without any knowledge involved, and as a matter of interpretation that can also be seen as an absurdity. If I could get you to consider that inanimate forces producing products that correlate with intelligence by themselves is strange to believe, maybe the counter position might seem more appealing.
Now this is not an argument from "design", it's an argument from correlation and function. The design argument falls apart because it gets people to focus on the flaws of the design and look at imperfections. The problem here, is that we are not looking for perfection because this world was created imperfect. Death, decay and spontaneous events will appear imperfect, but they are part of the product. Rather function is more appropriate, and associating processes with thought and mind (intelligence) can barely be avoided.
I don't expect a guy like you to accept it of course, but if I can get you away from such a rigid belief that God just doesn't exist and there's no reason to believe it then it is a step in the right direction.
I'd rather this not be a shoot out honestly because that's usually where it goes, but that we look for good talking points that we can expand on. If I can give you a decent reason to move forward in considering God exists that is what I would be looking for. I think correlation works strongly as a starting point.
But to get to your response, the products of the universe are indicative of intelligence simply by what they produce. They are products of thought and mind, each event serves a particular purpose or outcome. This can be seen in stars, orbits, planetary arrangements, solar systems, ecosystems, evolution, plants, animals, humans ect ect. The final product from the start of the BB until now correlates clearly with what appears to be a product of thought.
We have clear examples of that right in front of our faces.....production requires a producer, construction requires a constructor, buildings require builders, manufacturing requires a manufacturer. Why? because inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves and because there needs to be forethought into bringing about a product that is functional and working.
Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.
-->
@3RU7AL
I do believe God exists and this is why...BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAME FROM SOMETHING AND THAT SOMETHING IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "GOD" (OR NOUMENON)
There we go! you answered lol, thank you!
Do you have any other reason for your answer? or does that suffice?
-->
@EtrnlVw
If one believes in a purposeful universe, then GOD can be all things to all things.
Stylized deities are but one option.
And the Christian GOD is but one of many stylized deities.
-->
@zedvictor4
If one believes in a purposeful universe, then GOD can be all things to all things.
And what do you believe Zeddy? you haven't answered the question....
Stylized deities are but one option.
Well, I didn't present any options so it is kinda irrelevant. Just want to know if you believe God exists, or not.
And the Christian GOD is but one of many stylized deities.
What is the point behind this comment?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Nope.
As clearly stated elsewhere....I do not BELIEVE in fantasy tales.
I ACCEPT the principle of purpose....Which can be referred to as a GOD principle....Can be labelled as a FRED principle if you like....It's just that the label GOD is a well established one.
I also accept the idea of purposelessness.
In terms of universe, popular religion is a recent and typical stab in the dark (It was a magic bloke what did it)....Though in terms of knowledge, popular religion is an archaic and unscientific stab in the dark.(It was a magic bloke what did it).
So you believe in magic blokes.....No problem.....That's just your conditioned way of coping.