Does the (Christian) God Exist?

[Othelos]

So you don't think God is omnibenevolent?

I have no real thought on that one way or another. as I said I don't find it to be a useful concept.

Do you believe that God is love?

[Ashmoria]

I have no real thought on that one way or another. as I said I don't find it to be a useful concept.

Do you believe that God is love?

I don't even know what that means.

[Othelos]

Do you believe that God is love?

I don't even know what that means.

I've heard it from some Christians. Never mind, then.

[Ashmoria]

I don't even know what that means.

I've heard it from some Christians. Never mind, then.

given that god doesn't exist, it is also true that if he did we couldn't possibly understand him.

[People Who Say Ni]

I still think that even deism, though it is a much more rational position than theism, makes assumptions about the world with no scientific or philosophical grounding.

Scientific grounding? No. Philosophical? Why not? I mean, if there is a deity/deities, it seems like a stretch that they would care about a species on a planet that's a tiny speck in the scope of the entire universe.

You also have to deal with a lack of evidence, as well as asking yourself where the god came from - it may violate Occam's razor - and it is certainly very improbably. Remember the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
There just is no real reason to be a deist.

[Mavorpen]

Scientific grounding? No. Philosophical? Why not? I mean, if there is a deity/deities, it seems like a stretch that they would care about a species on a planet that's a tiny speck in the scope of the entire universe.

You also have to deal with a lack of evidence, as well as asking yourself where the god came from - it may violate Occam's razor - and it is certainly very improbably. Remember the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
There just is no real reason to be a deist.

You really don't need material evidence to form a purely philosophical argument. Plus, something outside of the universe that also doesn't interact with it wouldn't leave anything to test nor measure empirically.

[Genivaria]

I've heard it from some Christians. Never mind, then.

given that god doesn't exist, it is also true that if he did we couldn't possibly understand him.

God being an Eldritch Abomination makes alot of sense actually.

[Ashmoria]

given that god doesn't exist, it is also true that if he did we couldn't possibly understand him.

God being an Eldritch Abomination makes alot of sense actually.

the god you can understand is not the real god

(paraphrase of the taoteching)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Scientific grounding? No. Philosophical? Why not? I mean, if there is a deity/deities, it seems like a stretch that they would care about a species on a planet that's a tiny speck in the scope of the entire universe.

You also have to deal with a lack of evidence, as well as asking yourself where the god came from - it may violate Occam's razor - and it is certainly very improbably. Remember the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
There just is no real reason to be a deist.

Dawkins really isn't the sharpest philosopher out there.

His explanation about the Ultimate 747 Gambit was against Intelligent Design (ID); Deism certainly isn't ID although it does derive from the fact that God is Universe's Architect. For me he was, at the very least, the designer of the natural laws which govern our universe, but does not have any particular interference in the world around us; he just doesn't care for it since he made it work just fine without his interference.

A philosophical/theological God doesn't require any empirical evidence, as Mav said before, all we need is "formal proof" that such a deity exists, but not an intricate, empirical proof that he does unlike a Theist approach.

[People Who Say Ni]

You also have to deal with a lack of evidence, as well as asking yourself where the god came from - it may violate Occam's razor - and it is certainly very improbably. Remember the ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
There just is no real reason to be a deist.

Dawkins really isn't the sharpest philosopher out there.

His explanation about the Ultimate 747 Gambit was against Intelligent Design (ID); Deism certainly isn't ID although it does derive from the fact that God is Universe's Architect. For me he was, at the very least, the designer of the natural laws which govern our universe, but does not have any particular interference in the world around us; he just doesn't care for it since he made it work just fine without his interference.

A philosophical/theological God doesn't require any empirical evidence, as Mav said before, all we need is "formal proof" that such a deity exists, but not an intricate, empirical proof that he does unlike a Theist approach.

The Boeing 747 was a counterargument against creationism, but it was also his argument for the improbability of any "creator beings" - regardless of the validity of Dawkins' "proof", there still isn't any REASON to be a deist.
The deist god is unfalsifiable. There are no known properties which are widely accepted. Deism isn't a religion, but it still makes a claim and the burden of proof is still applicable. Not only do we not have a reason to be a deist, but it doesn't matter if there is a deist god or not because it does not interfere with "reality". It perhaps even transcends reality, depending on who you speak to, which is a very weird thing to say.

[Lost heros]

Is circular logic that enticing?
God is good because God is God.

1. youre like a child whining that his parents hate him because they wont buy him a pony. as it says in the book of job, 2. the universe is complicated, you have no idea how hard it is to make it all work out.

1. What?
2. So because the universe is complicated, god exists. Logic.

[Galloism]

Well, they were familiar with the concept of death. The animals still died after all.

nu uh. they didn't last 2 weeks in the garden. nothing had died yet.

The amount of time in the garden is not stated, actually.

Based on authoritative I've spoken to, the general feeling is they spent at least 30 years in the garden prior to sinning, but the assumptions used in that math may not stand up to scrutiny.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The Boeing 747 was a counterargument against creationism, but it was also his argument for the improbability of any "creator beings" - regardless of the validity of Dawkins' "proof", there still isn't any REASON to be a deist.

The deist god is unfalsifiable. There are no known properties which are widely accepted. Deism isn't a religion, but it still makes a claim and the burden of proof is still applicable. Not only do we not have a reason to be a deist, but it doesn't matter if there is a deist god or not because it does not interfere with "reality". It perhaps even transcends reality, depending on who you speak to, which is a very weird thing to say.

If we are going to extrapolate, also my claim pasta with meatballs are the best because the sauce placed in it is good also is my claim that said pasta sauce is the only thing we should put in pasta.

The deist god is a philosophical concept, not an empirical one, thus a philosophical proof suffices unlike the Theist notion which requires both empirical and philosophical proof. Not only is there a gap on how much proof you demand, but also the fact that atheists love the null hypothesis for some reason leaves them out of the loop into a "comfort zone" which cannot be penetrated because it keeps shifting because you are trying to disprove a theist notion of God - that which says nature is God's plaything. The belief that there is an "architect" God is a compromise between the following premises:

1 - I believe God is a being, a supernatural being at that.
2 - I know Science is right about the universe, but I am not so sure about the belief in God because it required more than saying "oh but nature" as I also reject creationism's claims about nature being interfered by God.

I think that a good point to start on this would be: given that there is a probability of existence of a God and there is a probability that the existence of any gods is false, which one would be more accurate?

Given that many people use a cosmological argument to defend God:

1 - Nothing cannot come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies its own existence.
2 - The universe could not have come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies the very existence of the universe, a prime cause which cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio and it is only justified through itself.
3 - A prime mover can only explain the existence of the universe, since it fulfills all criteria (it is a something that is necessary for something to have been created, it is justified through itself, and it cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio).
4 - The probability of God or a deity fulfills the role of a prime mover since it is a being that fulfills all criteria.
5 - Therefore God exists, or it is highly probable there is a deity which created the universe.

And Atheists like to use the Null Hypothesis which has the following amount of philosophical proof:

1 - Given two hypotheses: one in which God exists and one in which God doesn't exists, one must assume God doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.
2 - There is no evidence about a God (or gods) existing in the universe.
3 - Therefore God (or any gods) do not exist.

You can see where atheism and theism is fundamentally different and why any proofs (formal of empirical) about the existence or the non-existence of God does not suffice for either atheists or theists. Theists believe that there is fundamentally a deity - in this case God - because there is no other thing that can fulfill the criteria of a self-sustaining, irreducible principle in the mind of a theist; whereas an atheist believes there is fundamentally no deities - or in this case God - because there is no evidence pointing to the contrary (which is an argument based on materialism, and while valid, it posits that No God = intrinsically true, hence leaving no room for debate or to believe in a God without empirical evidence when formal metaphysical proofs suffice for the concept of a philosophical deity) and therefore no constructive ground happens when in these debates because of preconceived notions.

Deism, as you said, is unfalsifiable because it doesn't make the claim of an empirical God which has control over reality at their beck and call, so I see why atheists don't really bother - it's just not a goal worth pursuing since the bigger fish, which is a God which interacts with nature, is out there and it's more fun deconstructing. As for religion, yes it's not a religion, it falls within the spectrum of belief. Although I am a Deist I ascribe to Christianity because I believe Jesus was right in several things - including the love for your neighbor and God, the most important things to remember.

[New Gliese]

The Boeing 747 was a counterargument against creationism, but it was also his argument for the improbability of any "creator beings" - regardless of the validity of Dawkins' "proof", there still isn't any REASON to be a deist.

The deist god is unfalsifiable. There are no known properties which are widely accepted. Deism isn't a religion, but it still makes a claim and the burden of proof is still applicable. Not only do we not have a reason to be a deist, but it doesn't matter if there is a deist god or not because it does not interfere with "reality". It perhaps even transcends reality, depending on who you speak to, which is a very weird thing to say.

If we are going to extrapolate, also my claim pasta with meatballs are the best because the sauce placed in it is good also is my claim that said pasta sauce is the only thing we should put in pasta.

The deist god is a philosophical concept, not an empirical one, thus a philosophical proof suffices unlike the Theist notion which requires both empirical and philosophical proof. Not only is there a gap on how much proof you demand, but also the fact that atheist love the null hypothesis for some reason leaves them out of the loop into a "comfort zone" which cannot be penetrated because it keeps shifting because you are trying to disprove a theist notion of God - that which says nature is God's plaything. The belief that there is an "architect" God is a compromise between the following premises:

1 - I believe God is a being, a supernatural being at that.
2 - I know Science is right about the universe, but I am not so sure about the belief in God because it required more than saying "oh but nature" as I also reject creationism's claims about nature being interfered by God.

I think that a good point to start on this would be: given that there is a probability of existence of a God and there is a probability that the existence of any gods is false, which one would be more accurate?

Given that many people use a cosmological argument to defend God:

1 - Nothing cannot come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies its own existence.
2 - The universe could not have come from nothing, hence there must be something that was there that justifies the very existence of the universe, a prime cause which cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio and it is only justified through itself.
3 - A prime mover can only explain the existence of the universe, since it fulfills all criteria (it is a something that is necessary for something to have been created, it is justified through itself, and it cannot be succinctly explained ad reductio).
4 - The probability of God or a deity fulfills the role of a prime mover since it is a being that fulfills all criteria.
5 - Therefore God exists, or it is highly probable there is a deity which created the universe.

And Atheists like to use the Null Hypothesis which has the following amount of philosophical proof:

1 - Given two hypotheses: one in which God exists and one in which God doesn't exists, one must assume God doesn't exist unless proven otherwise.
2 - There is no evidence about a God (or gods) existing in the universe.
3 - Therefore God (or any gods) do not exist.

You can see where atheism and theism is fundamentally different and why any proofs (formal of empirical) about the existence or the non-existence of God does not suffice for either atheists or theists. Theists believe that there is fundamentally a deity - in this case God - because there is no other thing that can fulfill the criteria of a self-sustaining, irreducible principle in the mind of a theist; whereas an atheist believes there is fundamentally no deities - or in this case God - because there is no evidence pointing to the contrary (which is an argument based on materialism, and while valid, it posits that No God = intrinsically true, hence leaving no room for debate or to believe in a God without empirical evidence when formal metaphysical proofs suffice for the concept of a philosophical deity) and therefore no constructive ground happens when in these debates because of preconceived notions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

*bows*

[Ashmoria]

1. youre like a child whining that his parents hate him because they wont buy him a pony. as it says in the book of job, 2. the universe is complicated, you have no idea how hard it is to make it all work out.

1. What?
2. So because the universe is complicated, god exists. Logic.

we aren't talking about whether god exists but whether or not god is bound by your definition of omnibenevolence.

[Ashmoria]

nu uh. they didn't last 2 weeks in the garden. nothing had died yet.

The amount of time in the garden is not stated, actually.

Based on authoritative I've spoken to, the general feeling is they spent at least 30 years in the garden prior to sinning, but the assumptions used in that math may not stand up to scrutiny.

it got that off the net some time back. they certainly didn't last LONG in the garden. they were far too naive to have lasted that long and THEN get taken in by the serpent. and, if you think about how long the perfectly made first man and woman lived outside that garden, I would suggest that even mice might live 30 years after having been created directly by the hand of god.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. What?
2. So because the universe is complicated, god exists. Logic.

we aren't talking about whether god exists but whether or not god is bound by your definition of omnibenevolence.

I think the most proper question is: Is omni-benevolence an attribute given to God in any formal definitions and why? And what is omni-benevolence, if any is subscribed? How much benevolence do we need to prove for it to be omni-benevolence? And can we both agree on the established definition of omni-benevolence?

[Ashmoria]

we aren't talking about whether god exists but whether or not god is bound by your definition of omnibenevolence.

I think the most proper question is: Is omni-benevolence an attribute given to God in any formal definitions and why? And what is omni-benevolence, if any is subscribed? How much benevolence do we need to prove for it to be omni-benevolence? And can we both agree on the established definition of omni-benevolence?

that is very true. its hard to argue about since it is being used as a trap to show that it can possibly be true.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Disprove God?
This should be entertaining.

Lets start with this challenge. Prove to me that God exists.

Coming with a bravado like that makes me presuppose you want a material proof and nothing else will suffice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think the most proper question is: Is omni-benevolence an attribute given to God in any formal definitions and why? And what is omni-benevolence, if any is subscribed? How much benevolence do we need to prove for it to be omni-benevolence? And can we both agree on the established definition of omni-benevolence?

that is very true. its hard to argue about since it is being used as a trap to show that it can possibly be true.

It's worse because omni-benevolence is not an attribute given to God in any formal discourse ever. We don't touch that because, although he can be benevolent, he is not omni-benevolent. He isn't an eternally forgiving God, not even by scripture.

One could make the premise he is infinitely understanding from the fact he is omniscient, but not the case that God would be infinitely loving or merciful, because we don't even know how an infinitely loving and merciful God would act, it also posits there would be no hell in the afterlife, which we can assume from the given definition of God this isn't the case, at all.

[Ashmoria]

that is very true. its hard to argue about since it is being used as a trap to show that it can possibly be true.

It's worse because omni-benevolence is not an attribute given to God in any formal discourse ever. We don't touch that because, although he can be benevolent, he is not omni-benevolent. He isn't an eternally forgiving God, not even by scripture.

One could make the premise he is infinitely understanding from the fact he is omniscient, but not the case that God would be infinitely loving or merciful, because we don't even know how an infinitely loving and merciful God would act, it also posits there would be no hell in the afterlife, which we can assume from the given definition of God this isn't the case, at all.

the bible says that god loves ME which means he loves each of us. but, yeah, omnibenevolence with insisting that it means that I must come out on the good side of every bad situation or god is dead--that is obviously not true so it is a linguistic trap that I am not going to fall into.

[Polgrusan]

Disprove God?
This should be entertaining.

Lets start with this challenge. Prove to me that God exists.

Prove Atheism

[Liriena]

Disprove God?
This should be entertaining.

Lets start with this challenge. Prove to me that God exists.

Prove Atheism

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god. To demand that atheism is 'proven' is to demand that we prove a negative.

Prove that your deity exists.

[Polgrusan]

Prove Atheism

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god. To demand that atheism is 'proven' is to demand that we prove a negative.

Prove that your deity exists.

Oh I see...
Atheist says Christianity is wrong because there isn't any proof of it=right
Christian says Atheism is wrong because there isn't proof of it=wrong
You can't prove a negative, we can't prove a spirit.