God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Stormwind-City]

Exactly. If theists were to provide hard evidence validating their belief in God, then we wouldn't feel obligated to keep asking for it. At least, most of us wouldn't. Militant atheists would just disregard it.

Something doesn't exist just because you have no evidence to prove it's existence or it's in-existence.

But until you can demonstrate evidence of its existence there is no reason to assume existence.

[Vilatania]

Exactly. If theists were to provide hard evidence validating their belief in God, then we wouldn't feel obligated to keep asking for it. At least, most of us wouldn't. Militant atheists would just disregard it.

Something doesn't exist just because you have no evidence to prove it's existence or it's in-existence.

Yeah but without that evidence there is absolutely no reason to believe in it. In fact to do so is illogical and totally irrational.

[Sociobiology]

Exactly. If theists were to provide hard evidence validating their belief in God, then we wouldn't feel obligated to keep asking for it. At least, most of us wouldn't. Militant atheists would just disregard it.

Something doesn't exist just because you have no evidence to prove it's existence or it's in-existence.

it does however make its non-existence more likely.

[Arbolvine]

Something doesn't exist just because you have no evidence to prove it's existence or it's in-existence.

it does however make its non-existence more likely.

I'm surprised I can agree with Sociobiology for once.

[Shaggai]

You can't disprove God because he doesn't exist in the first place, and therefore has no traces of evidence.

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

[Arbolvine]

You can't disprove God because he doesn't exist in the first place, and therefore has no traces of evidence.

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at. By the same logic, nothing can be disproven, because anything that has no evidence doesn't exist. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate an example of this logical fallacy.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

After much thought and meditation, I have come to believe a God exists. They are female, a person of colour, and an intersectional feminist. If people can have their faith, I can have mine in final justice and compassion

And what exactly is it that causes you to believe that: 1. There is a god. 2. They're female. 3. They're not white. 4. A feminist. ?

Yes. Until evidence to the contrary is presented, that is my stance.

Uhm...there were two options here...

Yes. Until evidence to the contrary is presented, that is my stance.

You just answered a two-option question with a yes.

After much thought and meditation, I have come to believe a God exists. They are female, a person of colour, and an intersectional feminist. If people can have their faith, I can have mine in final justice and compassion

Was there any particular reason in your "meditations" for a god of this nature, or are these arbitrary traits your mind assigned to your ideal deity?

Yes, and?

You can't disprove God because he doesn't exist in the first place, and therefore has no traces of evidence.

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

[The Rich Port]

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at. By the same logic, nothing can be disproven, because anything that has no evidence doesn't exist. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate an example of this logical fallacy.

And frankly, it doesn't disprove it.

Having a lack of evidence for something means you have a reasonable basis for denying it exists and an unreasonable basis for stating it exists.

[Sociobiology]

Christian faith is not faith without evidence.

correct, faith is belief regardless of evidence.

existential look at a metaphysical thing objectively
I sit in a (sturdy looking) chair that I have never used before because it is the nature of a chair to hold my weight. I believe it will hold my weight and act accordingly. One acts because of belief in the certitude of the thing.

which is called making a prediction of probability based on evidence,belief based on evidence, the same thing that says even the testable definitions of gods are extremely unlikely to exist.

Rational Validity
There is a logical necessity for an uncaused causeless first cause.

no there isn't, it is a self-refuting argument. It invalidates it's own assumption.

What a theologically sound Christian means by God
Religion deals with man's concept of God, and is going to be just as flawed and limited as he is. Man's concept of God, is not necessarily God, but God is bigger than man's inability.

which is ascribing characteristics to something you can't demonstrate exists, which only makes it less likely to exist.

An invisible dinosaur is unlikely, an invisible dinosaur that smells like peanut butter is even less likely.

I do believe the evidence presented that 2000 years ago the man Jesus of Nazereth was everything He said, and proved His divinity by raising from the dead.

which we have no evidence happened. It being true is less likely than it being a lie or trick. So your belief is unfounded.

His testimony to the veracity of Scripture,

logic see circular.

and the nature of life, the universe, and everything pertaining to life and godliness is sufficiently compelling.

argument from ignorance.

The theological and philosophical depiction coheres to an objective reality that as Ravi Zacharias has stated, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting

it has many many times, like when they started putting lightning rods on steeples.
moving the goalpost is an admission of failure of the first argument.

; it has been found difficult and left untried."

actually it has been found untestable and thus less likely than it being incorrect.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at. By the same logic, nothing can be disproven, because anything that has no evidence doesn't exist. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate an example of this logical fallacy.

"You can't disprove it, so it must exist," is an argument used by theists everywhere. Such a position cannot be proven or disproven, but it can outright be dismissed.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at. By the same logic, nothing can be disproven, because anything that has no evidence doesn't exist. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate an example of this logical fallacy.

And frankly, it doesn't disprove it.

Having a lack of evidence for something means you have a reasonable basis for denying it exists and an unreasonable basis for stating it exists.

This, pretty much. But with more ego.

[Sociobiology]

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

because theists are the one making the claim, the are positing something which by its very nature is less likely (because it adds variables) thus they must provide evidence for this claim or we default back to treating it as less likely, this is called the burden off proof.

[The Rich Port]

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at. By the same logic, nothing can be disproven, because anything that has no evidence doesn't exist. Honestly, I don't know how to articulate an example of this logical fallacy.

"You can't disprove it, so it must exist," is an argument used by theists everywhere. Such a position cannot be proven or disproven, but it can outright be dismissed.

And frankly, it doesn't disprove it.

Having a lack of evidence for something means you have a reasonable basis for denying it exists and an unreasonable basis for stating it exists.

This, pretty much. But with more ego.

It's fine.

My biggest gripe with religion specifically is that it's so goddamn subjective nowadays when it wasn't subjective at all when I was a Catholic.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

because theists are the one making the claim, the are positing something which by its very nature is less likely (because it adds variables) thus they must provide evidence for this claim or we default back to treating it as less likely, this is called the burden off proof.

This.

[Arbolvine]

Much better, Pretantia! Welcome back!

[The Nexus of Man]

God as most religions describe it/him/her/they doesn't exist. The christian god for example is disproven by logic with the omnipotence paradox and the benevolence-omnipotence-omniscience paradox. But in my view a god that simply created the universe and let it do its thing cant be disproven since you cant prove a negative. I myself don't believe in god btw.

I already proved all those three things in Does God Exist Pt. 1, but whatevs.

[Shaggai]

haha what

You can't disprove something that doesn't exist, because it has no evidence? So if it did exist and have traces of evidence, you could disprove it? Complete failure to think things through.

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

By its very nature, it has no evidence to either claim. We can go on about the nuances indefinitely (which I won't), but it boils down to,"Theists need evidence, I don't; theists hhave no evidence, so I can dismiss their claim."

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

I share the same sentiment as them.

[Swjistan]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

[Shaggai]

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

I share the same sentiment as them.

Then why the hell are you talking about evidence?

[Arbolvine]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

May your faith give you happiness. I am almost certain you are wrong, but that shouldn't keep you from finding your own path.

[The Rich Port]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

... Why does it matter that you prove you believe.

We'll take your word for it.

Your uninformed, willfully ignorant word for it.

We don't find the religious intolerable unless they're proselytizing down our throats.

We find you ignorant. That's it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I share the same sentiment as them.

Then why the hell are you talking about evidence?

Because evidence is what really matters, while idle reasoning can only go so far. Lack of evidence is what damns every theological argument to dismissal.

[Vilatania]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

I won't respect voluntary ignorance.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

I'll respect your right to hold your beliefs.

I promise no such thing for the beliefs themselves.

[The Nexus of Man]

No one can prove that there is a god out there but I can prove that I believe in that God that is out there somewhere. I do not expect you to stop what you're doing and start to praise the Lord at the top of your longs but I do expect you to respect my beliefs even if you find them too intolerable and I will respect your beliefs.

... Why does it matter that you prove you believe.

We'll take your word for it.

Your uninformed, willfully ignorant word for it.

We don't find the religious intolerable unless they're proselytizing down our throats.

We find you ignorant. That's it.

>calls someone ignorant
>affirms belief in no god and thus implying that this must by the right answer with no backup