Debate on the existence of god

[LostInNerSpace]

why would we even have a thread about this? What's one person's oppinion going to have on another person? It's all internal, it's what YOU believe, and it's ridiculous to tell people that there is or isn't a god. Just keep it to yoursel, who cares who you tell..it doesn't mean anything at all.

It's called a discussion. The title of the thread is "Debate the existence of God". Did something you read touch a nerve? As far as I can see nobody is trying to force their opinion.

 

[Kiddo]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

A person's spiritual beliefs are almost entirely determined by where they were born, what their family and friends were like, and the experiences they have had. So debating about the existence of God is not meaningless since it will tell you a lot about how an individual has lived their life and will continue to live their life, based upon their belief of whether or not a God exists; but it won't tell whether or not such a supreme being actually exists. Hence why a lot of people have interest in knowing in whether a person believes in God or not, even though it is fairly clear that there is no conclusive answer to whether or not one does.

 

[simulatedworld]

Ok, I'm going to do my best to quell this horrible, horrible "OMG U CANT PROVE EITHER SIDE SO HOW CAN U MAKE A DECISION LOL?" argument.

It's true that we cannot have absolute certainty about the nature/existence of God/gods and the origin of the universe. Fair enough. BUT:

All things are inherently uncertain. That doesn't make them all equally probable.

I'm going to say that again, because it's incredibly important. All things are inherently uncertain but that doesn't make them all equally probable.

This is why it gets under my skin so fucking much when "Intelligent Design" people run around spouting off all this nonsense about how "all viewpoints should be equally respected" and blah blah. That's a nice ideal to aim for, but there does come a point when the educated world realizes that even though we can't completely disprove something, we can still act on the basis that it is probably not true when the available evidence indicates such.

The biggest problem with faith and religion is its inability to respond to new changes in evidence. Science is always testing its own rules looking for flaws, and when it finds them it admits past mistakes and revises its overall worldview. It starts with no preconceived notions about the nature of the universe, and then it makes observations and starts to posit guesses as to why the phenomena it has observed occur. This is called being reasonable.

Faith starts with a preconceived notion about the nature of the universe, and then, with an obvious ulterior motive, attempts to force its observations into fitting in line with its preconceived, arbitrarily chosen "facts" about how the universe really is. And where do these supposed facts come from? Why, a book which claims total accuracy based solely on the fact that it SAYS it's totally accurate. Jokes and jokes and jokes....

Why do religious people insist that we must have ABSOLUTE TOTAL 100% CERTAINTY about something before we can make any meaningful decisions about it? The universe functions in probability clouds, not absolutes. We make decisions based on what the evidence seems to indicate is probably true; lacking 100% absolute certainty does not preclude us from making inferences about which belief systems probably are correct or incorrect.

I can't stress enough how bloody sick I am of hearing "WELL SINCE U CANT COMPLETELY PROVE OR DISPROVE EITHER 100%, BOTH MUST BE EXACTLY 50% LIKELY TO BE CORRECT AND THEREFORE BOTH ARE EQUALLY INTELLECTUALLY VALID LOL"

NO. WRONG. Arbitrarily devoting one's life to a belief system that science has repeatedly shown to be very probably (though not 100% definitely) wrong is NOT inherently as respectable as making decisions based on data provided by empirical evidence and shown repeatedly to be very probably correct.

When you get right down to it, I'm not 100% certain that my house will not explode in the next 10 seconds. But past evidence indicates that it probably won't, so I'll continue to structure my behavior and belief system at least partially around the idea that my house probably will not explode in the next 10 seconds. Just because I can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER doesn't grant any random, highly improbable, arbitrary, absurd ideas equal credibility.

For that matter, why is faith admired/respected in so much of our society? Why do we dress up in such nobility and honor a process which consists essentially of systematically denying reality and empirical evidence?

We don't respect Holocaust deniers for the "faith" they have that the Holocaust was made up, so why should we respect people for any other arbitrary decisions on vitally important issues based on zero evidence? Sorry, but "he's a man of great faith!" is not and never will be a compliment.

WOW LOOK 10 SECONDS PASSED AND MY HOUSE IS STILL HERE. GOSH I'M SO LUCKY

 

[simulatedworld]

I also think it's cute how the people who get upset when we try to discuss faith/religion objectively ("OMG WHY DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS???") are the same ones who tend to buy into such nonsense in the first place. You're free to bury yourself deeper in denial for as long as you want, but if you don't want to participate in a rational discussion about faith, at least do us a favor and stay out of ours.

 

[reason]

It's unanswerable.

The question 'does a god exist?' is easily answered with either a 'yes' or 'no.' It is done frequently.

There is no way to know.

I agree--at least by what I suppose you mean by 'know.' This, however, does not preclude one from being right or wrong. Since a god either exists or does not, one answer to the question 'does a god exist?' is correct and the other is wrong. Even if nobody knows, would it not seem wise to try and figure out which is true (especially considering the consequences of erring)?

he debaters do not share any common assumptions, one of the minimum requirements for a productive debate.

I endevour to refute this notion in every debate I have. It all depends on what you seek from a debate and what you consider constitutes a 'productive debate.'

 

[reason]

Why debate anything? Debates on any topic rarely convince people.

Is the only purpose of debate to convince the other that you are right? Why can it not be to discover that all are wrong?

 

[LostInNerSpace]

This is why it gets under my skin so fucking much when "Intelligent Design" people run around spouting off all this nonsense about how "all viewpoints should be equally respected" and blah blah.

It's about respecting their feeling not their thinking. Feeling is more important than thinking to some people. Did you notice what the person who got upset about this discussion has in her signature? "heart before intellect"--sacrilegious for most NTs.

= This is sometimes me when people get too close with this kind of feeling.

:rolli: = me other times.

= people who whine about atheists or believers



Incidentally, I'm agnostic not atheist. It was a feeler who pointed that out, and this particular feeler tend to make me .

 

[reason]

I'm going to say that again, because it's incredibly important. All things are inherently uncertain but that doesn't make them all equally probable.

By 'things' I suppose you mean ideas, propositions, theories, etc. rather than people, circles, colours, etc. If so, then things are not 'inherently uncertain.' People may be certain or uncertain about an idea, proposition, theory, or what have you, but these things are not inherently uncertain.

Curious green dreams sleep furiously too, I bet.

 

[Cimarron]

why would we even have a thread about this? What's one person's oppinion going to have on another person? It's all internal, it's what YOU believe, and it's ridiculous to tell people that there is or isn't a god. Just keep it to yoursel, who cares who you tell..it doesn't mean anything at all.

It sounds like you agree with the OP.

 

[simulatedworld]

It's about respecting their feeling not their thinking. Feeling is more important than thinking to some people. Did you notice what the person who got upset about this discussion has in her signature? "heart before intellect"--sacrilegious for most NTs.

= This is sometimes me when people get too close with this kind of feeling.

:rolli: = me other times.

= people who whine about atheists or believers



Incidentally, I'm agnostic not atheist. It was a feeler who pointed that out, and this particular feeler tend to make me .

Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive; Agnosticism, in fact, is almost always accompanied by either Atheism or some form of theism.

Agnosticism simply means uncertainty. Anyone, theist or not, who claims absolute knowledge of the universe (gnosticism), is being a goofball.

I identify as an Agnostic Atheist--I'm not completely sure about the nature of the universe and never will be, but evidence indicates that the specific forms of God our society has dreamed up are all rather improbable, to say the least, so I remain an Atheist (it's my best guess) until shown enough evidence to make me guess otherwise.

I'm just really irritated by the general idea that the fact that metaphysical philosophy operates entirely in the realm of guesswork necessitates that no meaningful metaphysical decisions can be made--it's constantly used as a cheap catch-all for justifying lots of ridiculous assertions. Less than 100% certainty does not automatically necessitate 50% certainty.

And I do respect their feeling in that I will always defend their right to continue believing whatever it is that they want to. I would never attempt to impose my views on others by actively forcing people to stop studying religion, but I'd also never do anything to restrict my own right to criticize them publicly for it.

I don't walk into churches and start metaphysical debates, though, and if someone in a live debate tells me that he doesn't want to discuss it anymore, I will always respect his right to abstain from the discussion, and leave him alone. That's why the internet is so great, though--it's impersonal enough that you can say pretty much whatever you want, and it allows anyone who wants to to get involved without forcing anyone who doesn't want to to stick around!

 

[simulatedworld]

By 'things' I suppose you mean ideas, propositions, theories, etc. rather than people, circles, colours, etc. If so, then things are not 'inherently uncertain.' People may be certain or uncertain about an idea, proposition, theory, or what have you, but these things are not inherently uncertain.

Curious green dreams sleep furiously too, I bet.

Yes, they are. Everything is inherently uncertain. We can say "that wall is green" with a high degree of certainty but only because we've predefined that particular visual appearance as "green" before the fact. When someone else says they see the same wall that you do, and describes it as green just as you do, subjective experience necessitates that you can't really be certain you're seeing the same thing--you're both just seeing whatever combination of colors you've been taught from birth is "green." Maybe the shade you consider green actually appears to someone else as the color you'd call purple, but no one will ever know!

If I decide that my dog's name is Rover, I know 100% that he is, in fact, named Rover, but only because I set the system that way myself. This does no good in helping us escape the problem of metaphysical subjectivity.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Is the only purpose of debate to convince the other that you are right? Why can it not be to discover that all are wrong?

Yes my questions in the post you are quoting are largely rhetorical. The reasons why you'd debate the existence of God are the same reasons that you'd debate anything else. Convincing the person that you are debating should be near the bottom of the list of those reasons though, because there are more effective methods of persuading people, but it is very difficult to persuade the person you are debating.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes my questions in the post you are quoting are largely rhetorical. The reasons why you'd debate the existence of God are the same reasons that you'd debate anything else. Convincing the person that you are debating should be near the bottom of the list of those reasons though, because there are more effective methods of persuading people, but it is very difficult to persuade the person you are debating.

As I've mentioned: I, and others like me, are extremely easy to persuade regardless of the format of the discussion:

Provide evidence which disproves our assertions upon the basis of objective fact.

Unfortunately, the religious-minded have extreme difficulty understanding what constitutes an "objective fact".

 

[Nocapszy]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable.

No... it actually is.
And has been.

It's just that there are as many people who are unwilling to accept the evidence as there are propounders of that evidence.

 

[Night]

Is the only purpose of debate to convince the other that you are right? Why can it not be to discover that all are wrong?

Well said.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

As I've mentioned: I, and others like me, are extremely easy to persuade regardless of the format of the discussion:

Provide evidence which disproves our assertions upon the basis of objective fact.

Unfortunately, the religious-minded have extreme difficulty understanding what constitutes an "objective fact".

Well what you call "objective fact" shows a distanct lack of "critical thinking". Should I conclude that, like you, all science atheists have extreme difficulty with "critical thinking"?

 

[nightning]

The question 'does a god exist?' is easily answered with either a 'yes' or 'no.' It is done frequently.

Well sure you can assign a "yes" or "no" to it... you just have no valid evidence in support of your claim. That's what I meant by "unanswerable". Perhaps I should have phrased it more succinctly as "cannot be proven". My apologies for randomly slapping words on the screen.

I endevour to refute this notion in every debate I have. It all depends on what you seek from a debate and what you consider constitutes a 'productive debate.'

That was my question... what are people seeking out of a debate relating to god. To convert others? To booster self-beliefs? To get a kick out of annihilating your opposition? Something else?

Is the only purpose of debate to convince the other that you are right? Why can it not be to discover that all are wrong?

Well that's a possibility. Too bad very few people take the approach in debates.

If A, then not B. If not A, then B. What about C?

Strangely the possibility of C rarely cross people's minds since they're so intent on option A and B. It doesn't answer my question as to the general case though...

 

[nonsequitur]

It doesn't answer my question as to the general case though...

My view:

Atheists bother arguing because they believe that they are "right", and that logic/empiricism = truth. Therefore anyone who believes otherwise is being illogical and delusional.

Theists bother arguing because it has been such an intrinsic, meaning-providing source in their life. To hear it thusly denigrated and written off is very offensive.

There is no real resolution to this question for either side (in that neither side will convince the other), but the debate will go on anyway. I have no interest in this topic whatsoever because it has no impact on how I live my life.

 

[reason]

Everything is inherently uncertain.

Suppose that simulatedworld is uncertain. It would seem eminently sensible to pose the question 'what is simulatedworld uncertain about?' If someone is uncertain, then they are uncertain about something. Perhaps simulatedworld is uncertain about the truth of evolutionary theory, or the proposition 'the wall in front of simulatedworld is green,' or the morality of the command 'thou shalt not kill,' etc. In any case, it would seem nonsensical to pose a similar question to, say, the theory of relativity. If it is uncertain then, like simulatedworld, it must be uncertain about something, right? Is it, perhaps, uncertain about the theory of evolution?

Ideas (propositions, theories, hypotheses, etc.) are not uncertain, no more than they are green. An idea may be about something that is green, or someone may be uncertain about an idea, but the ideas themselves are not green or uncertain. What you or I may feel about an idea should not be mistaken for a property of the idea itself. simulatedworld is uncertain, his ideas are not. Another may feel certain about the same ideas. Certainty offers no guaruntee against error, but it may be, and is frequently, had by many people.

 

[Night]

Ideas (propositions, theories, hypotheses, etc.) are not uncertain, no more than they are green. An idea may be about something that is green, or someone may be uncertain about an idea, but the ideas themselves are not green or uncertain.

Interesting point, reason.

Detachment from transference is a hallmark signature of those working towards a semblance of objectivity in perceiving the object they are studying.

Wildcat provides great opinions on the subject. Or is it the object?