Is There a God?

[Chinese Regions]

Essentially. Not in the sense of a choice though. Is this leading to "why things behave the way they do"? We don't fully know the reason for everything behaving as it does yet. The best we can say is simply that they do, which is borne out by observation.

Ok. Things just behave that way because they do? I mean really don't sit back and think about how the Perfect the Earth is in terms of supporting human life. Any life for that matter.

The Earth isn't really that perfect, let me refer you to the spoiler in my sig.

The universe was not adapted for us, we adapted to the universe. Evolution made us perfect for our environment, it is not the universe that was made perfect for us.

And even if the Earth was made perfect for is, there are lots of things that are 'perfect' yet come about naturally, Crystals for example.

[Leepaidamba]

Essentially. Not in the sense of a choice though. Is this leading to "why things behave the way they do"? We don't fully know the reason for everything behaving as it does yet. The best we can say is simply that they do, which is borne out by observation.

Ok. Things just behave that way because they do? I mean really don't sit back and think about how the Perfect the Earth is in terms of supporting human life. Any life for that matter.

Life is adapted to its surroundings, not the other way around.

[Avenio]

Life is adapted to its surroundings, not the other way around.

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

~ Douglas Adams

[Chadacian]

So do you absolutely deny the existence of God

How did you get that from my post? I said nothing of the sort. I was clarifying my definition.

Do you believe in intelligent falling?

You asked me to attempt to prove that God exists. I ask the questions.

[Avenio]

You asked me to attempt to prove that God exists. I ask the questions.

So you deny the existence of R'hllor, Lord of Light?

[Person012345]

How did you get that from my post? I said nothing of the sort. I was clarifying my definition.

Do you believe in intelligent falling?

You asked me to attempt to prove that God exists. I ask the questions.

2 things.
1. No I didn't. Where did I ask you to do that? Quote it.
2. No, you don't get a monopoly on question-asking in a discussion. I have allowed you to do the question asking so far, but there will come a time when you will have to defend your claims (something I have not yet asked you to do).

[Xeng He]

Yes I believe there is one, with all my heart. Plus, if there wasn't, if we all evolved, what need is there for love? It just makes us weak. If we just evolved, we would not need to marry because it wouldn't matter. The only thing we would care about is our genes spreading so that we could continue on.

There's actually plenty of justification for both love and marriage in evolutionary terms.

For one thing, animals don't actively go out and go "I'm going to preserve and replicate my genetic makeup" under evolution. The animals whose genetic makeup and environment are, combined, most condusive to continued reproduction define the genetic makeups of the most other individuals. A motivation to do so is pretty much what makes that whole thing possible, and a desire to protect those who could reproduce with you leads to more of that stuff among animals that don't have huge numbers of offspring.

Similarly, evolution doesn't have to reward the "strong". This assumption is a gigantic misunderstanding of what it is. Even if an evolutionary trait is entirely detrimental, it ccan still be passed on and become dominant if something happens by coincidence to hurt the "stronger" group.

[Llyddfyd]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief, that is that God definitely does not exist, and their reason is absurd- They hold that their position is the more reasonable and less extravegant position, and therefore, theirs should be the default position against which Theists must defend their own beliefs. Why is 'Yes, God exist' any more extravegant than 'No, God does not exist', when the evidence doesn't bear out for either. One may reasonably say 'Because there is a lack of evidence, God probably doesn't exist', an agnostic, rather than atheistic, position, however, they chose a position that says something definite, and so must provide definite proof for their definite beliefs.

[Samuraikoku]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief, that is that God definitely does not exist, and their reason is absurd- They hold that their position is the more reasonable and less extravegant position, and therefore, theirs should be the default position against which Theists must defend their own beliefs. Why is 'Yes, God exist' any more extravegant than 'No, God does not exist', when the evidence doesn't bear out for either. One may reasonably say 'Because there is a lack of evidence, God probably doesn't exist', an agnostic, rather than atheistic, position, however, they chose a position that says something definite, and so must provide definite proof for their definite beliefs.

Russell's Teapot defeats that argument.

[Samuraikoku]

You asked me to attempt to prove that God exists. I ask the questions.

And I repeat to you.

[Llyddfyd]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief, that is that God definitely does not exist, and their reason is absurd- They hold that their position is the more reasonable and less extravegant position, and therefore, theirs should be the default position against which Theists must defend their own beliefs. Why is 'Yes, God exist' any more extravegant than 'No, God does not exist', when the evidence doesn't bear out for either. One may reasonably say 'Because there is a lack of evidence, God probably doesn't exist', an agnostic, rather than atheistic, position, however, they chose a position that says something definite, and so must provide definite proof for their definite beliefs.

Russell's Teapot defeats that argument.

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

[Person012345]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief, that is that God definitely does not exist, and their reason is absurd- They hold that their position is the more reasonable and less extravegant position, and therefore, theirs should be the default position against which Theists must defend their own beliefs. Why is 'Yes, God exist' any more extravegant than 'No, God does not exist', when the evidence doesn't bear out for either. One may reasonably say 'Because there is a lack of evidence, God probably doesn't exist', an agnostic, rather than atheistic, position, however, they chose a position that says something definite, and so must provide definite proof for their definite beliefs.

No, you have it all wrong. I do not claim to know that a god does not exist. I do not positively believe in a god. If you claim there is one, it is up to you to provide evidence. If you do not, then I will continue not-believing.

However, if you would like to make specific claims about your god, I may well be able to present evidence that they are false. Give it a go.

[Avenio]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief

We don't have to, mind. Atheism is the null hypothesis, as it makes no claims about how the universe works other than what can be observed. Theistic beliefs, on the other hand, do make a testabe claim about the universe, beyond what can be directly observed - that God or gods exist - and thus that is the testable hypothesis.

[Person012345]

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

See, this has been explained before. Theism/Atheism are positions on belief. Gnostic/Agnostic are positions on knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist. If you are agnostic in the "I don't know if god exists" sense then you are an atheist (because you do not positively believe that god exists).

[Samuraikoku]

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

On the contrary, one should. Without evidence, it didn't happen.

[Llyddfyd]

First, the Atheists here seem to think that only theists should provide a Positive account for their beliefs, and Theists should. They neglect, in their arrogance, to provide a positive account of their own belief, that is that God definitely does not exist, and their reason is absurd- They hold that their position is the more reasonable and less extravegant position, and therefore, theirs should be the default position against which Theists must defend their own beliefs. Why is 'Yes, God exist' any more extravegant than 'No, God does not exist', when the evidence doesn't bear out for either. One may reasonably say 'Because there is a lack of evidence, God probably doesn't exist', an agnostic, rather than atheistic, position, however, they chose a position that says something definite, and so must provide definite proof for their definite beliefs.

No, you have it all wrong. I do not claim to know that a god does not exist. I do not positively believe in a god. If you claim there is one, it is up to you to provide evidence. If you do not, then I will continue not-believing.

However, if you would like to make specific claims about your god, I may well be able to present evidence that they are false. Give it a go.

You claim that there is absolutely no God- that just as definitive as saying there is one. I have said that, yes, Theist should provide a positive account for their beliefs- they shouldn't demand that only Atheists should provide an positive account for their belief, it is the epitome of arroagance, however, to say that only Theists should provide an positive account, because when one makes a definitive statement like 'God exist' or 'God does not exist', instead of 'God probably exist' and 'God probably doesn't exist', one has to provide a positive account for that belief.

[Person012345]

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

On the contrary, one should. Without evidence, it didn't happen.

That's not correct. At one point we had no evidence of evolution. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It would have made it unreasonable to believe it, but it wouldn't mean it didn't happen.

[Llyddfyd]

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

On the contrary, one should. Without evidence, it didn't happen.

Without evidence- it probably didn't happen. To discount it altogether would be just as foolish and saying that it definitively exist.

[Person012345]

No, you have it all wrong. I do not claim to know that a god does not exist. I do not positively believe in a god. If you claim there is one, it is up to you to provide evidence. If you do not, then I will continue not-believing.

However, if you would like to make specific claims about your god, I may well be able to present evidence that they are false. Give it a go.

You claim that there is absolutely no God- that just as definitive as saying there is one. I have said that, yes, Theist should provide a positive account for their beliefs- they shouldn't demand that only Atheists should provide an positive account for their belief, it is the epitome of arroagance, however, to say that only Theists should provide an positive account, because when one makes a definitive statement like 'God exist' or 'God does not exist', instead of 'God probably exist' and 'God probably doesn't exist', one has to provide a positive account for that belief.

Stop making strawmen. Read what I just fucking wrote.

[Person012345]

And answer the goddamn question. You're being incredibly dishonest.

[Samuraikoku]

Without evidence- it probably didn't happen. To discount it altogether would be just as foolish and saying that it definitively exist.

I'll wait until evidence is presented to believe it happened. I'll choose to believe it didn't happen until so.

[Samuraikoku]

That's not correct. At one point we had no evidence of evolution. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It would have made it unreasonable to believe it, but it wouldn't mean it didn't happen.

Same as above.

[Desperate Measures]

How much would it cost to launch a teapot (engraved, of course) into space?

[Person012345]

That's not correct. At one point we had no evidence of evolution. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. It would have made it unreasonable to believe it, but it wouldn't mean it didn't happen.

Same as above.

Which is what I said, but you stated "it didn't happen", I wanted to clarify that before some theist jumped on it.

[Llyddfyd]

There may be a teapot in space, however, there is no evidence to bear out its existence, therefore, one should not be 'atheistic' about the existence of Mr Russell's hypothetical teapot, rather, one should be agnostic, and say that it 'probably does not exist'.

See, this has been explained before. Theism/Atheism are positions on belief. Gnostic/Agnostic are positions on knowledge. You can be an agnostic atheist. If you are agnostic in the "I don't know if god exists" sense then you are an atheist (because you do not positively believe that god exists).

Atheist is a certainty- it says that there is certainly no God. To be an agnostic is to mean that certain claims are, at the moment, unknown, and, at the moment, unknowable. By saying that you are an Atheist, you are saying that you do know the truth of a certain claim, ie there is definitely no God.