Does God (Christian) exist (Try No.2)

[Distruzionopolis]

Did he say that there is no absolute certain knowledge?

No, he did not. But if he did, he would be wrong. There cannot be absolutely certain knowledge.

Then he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

[Pandeeria]

I'm pretty confident a God doesn't exist (even if it does exist, I sure as hell wouldn't worship it), but I'm not 100%.

My default position is that it doesn't exist, and I will argue that as such. Until my mind is changed of course.

[Mavorpen]

I'm confused. What gave you the impression that I don't agree with him? I agree with agnosticism. I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

Unless you're actually saying "Sure. Okay." but pretending to say it in a sarcastic way to convince yourself you're right while knowing you aren't.

Convince myself that I'm right? Did I make an assertion?

You didn't? Well okay, nice to know that your initial question was worthless. Thanks for convincing me that I should stop clicking "Display this Post" on your posts.

[Distruzionopolis]

I'm pretty confident a God doesn't exist (even if it does exist, I sure as hell wouldn't worship it), but I'm not 100%.

My default position is that it doesn't exist, and I will argue that as such. Until my mind is changed of course.

That's fair enough. It's honestly as fair a statement as any non-militant atheist or agnostic person ever says. It's one of the many reasons I, so often, find myself agreeing with non-militant atheists and agnostics in their questions and critiques.

[Trygg]

Heh. I personally believe that the likelihood of a god existing is about as likely as my toilet becoming sentient.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No, he did not. But if he did, he would be wrong. There cannot be absolutely certain knowledge.

Then he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

But he can't be absolutely certain of that. *nod*
All strawmen are justified via solipsism. *nod* *nod*

[Arkolon]

Read my first post here. I do not pretend that he exists. I am an agnostic. I am saying that God's existence is ultimately unknowable.

Agnostic what? By what you said you are an agnostic atheist.

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

[Mavorpen]

Agnostic what? By what you said you are an agnostic atheist.

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Agnostic atheist it is, then.

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

Yes, the Judeo-Christian God, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, exist and are very real.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, the Judeo-Christian God, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, exist and are very real.

Oh no, and just when the thread was starting to get somewhat fun.

[The United Zones of the West]

I personally believe there is no evidence for the existence of any omnipotent being. The bible actively contradicts science, and declares that everything in it is true. As soon as one single point if proven untrue, the rest of the pile collapses. Religion stays still, and science moves, encircling and flanking it. Of course, some diehard fanatics will always rant on about 'you shall burn in hell for not believing', and there are some who will actively hunt down anything that goes against their beliefs. Science has given us advancement, but what has Christianity given us? War? Death? Ignorance? The bible is supposed to speak morality, but instead, it encourages crime, murder and opposition to civil rights. Religion to me, is a tool of brainwashing. If God was real, what kind of being would he be? A cruel being, creating lesser beings and bestowing 'sin' upon them and watching as his 'creations' become more and more twisted. Please discuss your answers below.

What has been proven untrue about it? Nothing in the Bible can be reliably contradicted. And if you think the Bible contradicts science, either you do not know anything about the Bile or you don't know anything about science. Science is about making a logical theory, then trying to disprove your theory with observation. You cannot observe things that happened thousands of years ago, so you can't say science contradicts the Bible. Science has indeed advanced civilizations, but the Bible has given us a framework on things that science cannot explain, like morals and history. You may say that the Bible is just a bunch of baloney, but there is so much archaeological evidence for the Bible being true that it would take an ignorant, closed-minded fool to believe it is completely false. For example, they have found a Sodom and Gomorrah recently. Digging through the layers of the different time eras, they have found a layer of SULFUR. Genesis 13:24 says, "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens." So obviously, at least SOME of the Bible is true. There were a few wars, granted, caused by Christians, but many Christians condemn them now saying that wars were not in the name of Christianity, but rather corrupt moves to gain more power. Or just Christians defending themselves. But here, let's show some of the mass murderers of history:
Joseph Stalin – atheist
Pol Pot – atheist
Mao Zedong – atheist
Benito Mussolini – atheist
Encourages crime and murder? Obviously you have never even heard of the Ten Commandments. And as for civil rights, we live by strict moral standards because, in the end, they benefit you. The bible may stand still, but that is because it is a rock, a foundation to be built upon. It is SUPPOSED to stand still. Actively contradicting science? You said science ran circles around the Bible. Maybe it does, but that is because science constantly changes. And he did not bestow sin upon anyone. He gave us the right to choose: Him or sin. We chose sin, and thus sin entered the world. Cruel? If he was cruel he would not give us free choice, he would send us all to hell and give us no chance at redemption. Instead, he sends his Son into the world to die for us, to take our punishment. You don't even have to follow Him, it just pleases Him when you do. All you have to do is accept his gift of redemption and grace, and believe in Him.
By the way, I am a big believer in science. I believe the Bible and science goes hand in hand.

[Immoren]

Heh. I personally believe that the likelihood of a god existing is about as likely as my toilet becoming sentient.

I'll install couple sensors into your toilet. It senses it's surroundings. It's now sentient.
Bang!

[Geilinor]

Agnostic what? By what you said you are an agnostic atheist.

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Okay, so the existence of God is ultimately unknowable. Do you believe in a God?
If yes, then you're theist.
If no, you're atheist.

[Shaggai]

You said that
The 0.00001% chance means that God's existence is ultimately unknowable. But there is no absolutely certain knowledge, so everything is ultimately unknowable.

I went through the solipsism-nihilism phase a good ten years ago. If you want to start down that road and order Thus Spake Zarathusra over Amazon, be my guest, but I'm telling you now that it's a waste of time.

My point is that all things are probabilities. If something has a sufficiently high probability, then it makes sense to act as if it is true. If it has a sufficiently low probability, then it makes sense to act as if it's false.

No, he did not. But if he did, he would be wrong. There cannot be absolutely certain knowledge.

Are you absolutely certain about that? *nods*

I assign an extremely high probability to it, yes. And, of course, even if I'm wrong, there's no reliable way to differentiate between absolutely certain knowledge and knowledge which isn't certain but exploits flaws in the human mind.

No, he did not. But if he did, he would be wrong. There cannot be absolutely certain knowledge.

Then he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

I think my formatting may have been a bit unclear. The quote was a quote, of course, but the text under the quote was my comment on that quote.

[Mavorpen]

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Okay, so the existence of God is ultimately unknowable. Do you believe in a God?
If yes, then you're theist.
If no, you're atheist.

I feel like I should go get some popcorn for this.

[Arkolon]

Then he didn't say what you're attributing to him.

But he can't be absolutely certain of that. *nod*
All strawmen are justified via solipsism. *nod* *nod*

The "Woah, dude, are you sure we even exist?" phase isn't supposed to last this long, especially not when we're talking about the existence of God. I find that the phase/real space argument pertains more to mathematics than philosophy or solipsism.

[WestRedMaple]

Sorry, typo. You claimed that the null hypothesis meant that the default was knowledge. That is obviously incorrect, as knowledge is used in the creation of the hypothesis.

No, knowledge is used in every facet of the path, including the default.

The null hypothesis doesn't really have anything to do with the post to which you were responding.

Again, only if you aren't reading.

The default is NOT knowledge. Until you gain knowledge, you do not have it.

And since you have knowledge before forming the hypothesis, you're only supporting my position.

Yes, supporting your position now that you finally admitted you agree with my position.

Lack of knowledge is the default. Nobody has any knowledge until they have acquired it

[Arkolon]

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Agnostic atheist it is, then.

If that's what it is, then sure. I'm not going to bother with the semantics of it all.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Okay, so the existence of God is ultimately unknowable. Do you believe in a God?
If yes, then you're theist.
If no, you're atheist.

If 'maybe' you're just agnostic.

[The Prophet]

Yes, the Judeo-Christian God, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah, exist and are very real.

Yes she does and her name is Eris, the mother of Jesus and all of mankind! Halaula praise the Goddess!

[Mavorpen]

Yes, supporting your position now that you finally admitted you disagree with my position.

Fixed.

Lack of knowledge is the default.

If you're dead, then sure.

Nobody has any knowledge until they have acquired it

That would be when you're born. So I mean, if you're including unborn humans in that, I guess you're technically right.

[Arkolon]

I'm just an agnostic. Labels and logos wear and tear, I prefer plain clothes, myself.

Okay, so the existence of God is ultimately unknowable. Do you believe in a God?
If yes, then you're theist.
If no, you're atheist.

It depends on how close the gun is to my head.

"Agnostic atheist" is what they're calling it, apparently.

[WestRedMaple]

So you admit I'm right wrong, but have to through in an baseless insult observation about me.

Fixed that for you. I'm not sure if that's another one of your typos or you just not reading again.

So you're not just wrong, you also don't grasp the concept of quoting.

Hint: when you are putting the words there, you're not quoting me

[Neutraligon]

I personally believe there is no evidence for the existence of any omnipotent being. The bible actively contradicts science, and declares that everything in it is true. As soon as one single point if proven untrue, the rest of the pile collapses. Religion stays still, and science moves, encircling and flanking it. Of course, some diehard fanatics will always rant on about 'you shall burn in hell for not believing', and there are some who will actively hunt down anything that goes against their beliefs. Science has given us advancement, but what has Christianity given us? War? Death? Ignorance? The bible is supposed to speak morality, but instead, it encourages crime, murder and opposition to civil rights. Religion to me, is a tool of brainwashing. If God was real, what kind of being would he be? A cruel being, creating lesser beings and bestowing 'sin' upon them and watching as his 'creations' become more and more twisted. Please discuss your answers below.

What has been proven untrue about it? Nothing in the Bible can be reliably contradicted. And if you think the Bible contradicts science, either you do not know anything about the Bile or you don't know anything about science. Science is about making a logical theory, then trying to disprove your theory with observation. You cannot observe things that happened thousands of years ago, so you can't say science contradicts the Bible. Science has indeed advanced civilizations, but the Bible has given us a framework on things that science cannot explain, like morals and history. You may say that the Bible is just a bunch of baloney, but there is so much archaeological evidence for the Bible being true that it would take an ignorant, closed-minded fool to believe it is completely false. For example, they have found a Sodom and Gomorrah recently. Digging through the layers of the different time eras, they have found a layer of SULFUR. Genesis 13:24 says, "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens." So obviously, at least SOME of the Bible is true. There were a few wars, granted, caused by Christians, but many Christians condemn them now saying that wars were not in the name of Christianity, but rather corrupt moves to gain more power. Or just Christians defending themselves. But here, let's show some of the mass murderers of history:
Joseph Stalin – atheist
Pol Pot – atheist
Mao Zedong – atheist
Benito Mussolini – atheist
Encourages crime and murder? Obviously you have never even heard of the Ten Commandments. And as for civil rights, we live by strict moral standards because, in the end, they benefit you. The bible may stand still, but that is because it is a rock, a foundation to be built upon. It is SUPPOSED to stand still. Actively contradicting science? You said science ran circles around the Bible. Maybe it does, but that is because science constantly changes. And he did not bestow sin upon anyone. He gave us the right to choose: Him or sin. We chose sin, and thus sin entered the world. Cruel? If he was cruel he would not give us free choice, he would send us all to hell and give us no chance at redemption. Instead, he sends his Son into the world to die for us, to take our punishment. You don't even have to follow Him, it just pleases Him when you do. All you have to do is accept his gift of redemption and grace, and believe in Him.
By the way, I am a big believer in science. I believe the Bible and science goes hand in hand.

Morals can be explained by science, in fact there are fields of science looking into it. History is simply what has happened in the past. As for nothing can be reliably contradicted, the bible itself contradicts itself, so yes it can be. More than that, many of the claims have been contradicted by science. Free will, so somehow coercion is free choice. Great...

[Mavorpen]

Fixed that for you. I'm not sure if that's another one of your typos or you just not reading again.

So you're not just wrong, you also don't grasp the concept of quoting.

Hint: when you are putting the words there, you're not quoting me

That's why I said I fixed it. That's an acknowledgement that I was referring to your original post, but felt the need to correct it. If I quoted you then edited it without acknowledging that I did and how, then you would be right.