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

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

And the discussion nearly died out, instantly.

2 whope minutes.

[Mavorpen]

When there isn't evidence for something the default position should be "it doesn't exist." If evidence comes along, you can reconsider.

There is quite a difference between 'I have no reason to believe this exists' and 'I know this does not exist'

The default position is always lack of knowledge

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

[Monkeykind]

And the discussion nearly died out, instantly.

Is 33 pages instant?

It is compared to something which lasted more than 500 pages.

[Dyakovo]

Well... No...
Lack of evidence is evidence of lack... What it isn't is proof…

Not really. You lack any evidence that I own a Mazda. That is not evidence that I do not own a Mazda

Yes it is. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence.

[Distruzionopolis]

There's this very basic root of epistemology that assesses what truth and belief are, and how they compare and comprise that which we consider knowledge. We have a Venn diagram of Truth, ie all things that are true in the world and beyond, and of Belief, or Faith, ie all things that we believe without necessary truth. Where these two circles intersect, however, is Knowledge, ie things that we believe to be true (things we know). Graphically, it looks like this.

In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, God is mentioned to have retorted to someone who inquires about His existence that "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". God's existence is dependent on faith. If there is no faith in God, then God does not exist. If God answers the question honestly as to whether or not He exists, then we will know whether or not He exists, which no longer makes His existence something we believe in but something that we believe to be true, ie that which we know. If we know, then we have no belief (faith) in God, and as such it is impossible for Him to exist.

The reason we cannot ever know whether or not God exists, and why this debate will continue for ever, is because you cannot find proof of His existence. You cannot ever know whether or not He exists because that's what makes him God; that's what gives Him (possible) existence. God, really, lives in phase space. His existence is a possibility, and cannot ever, ever, be translated as a possibility of either 1 or 0 because that would no longer make Him a God (even if the result is in His advantage).

I find militant atheism just as ignorant as militant theism. I feel sceptic about both sides, really, and prefer to join the ranks of other agnostics when it comes to the God issue.

This is acceptable to me. Quite acceptable. Even as a theist.

[WestRedMaple]

The part where you try and use lack of evidence as evidence of lack

It's important to realize that while there is no conclusive evidence of God's nonexistance, all the data indicate that he very probably doesn't exist. In which case it's no more than reasonable to assume he indeed doesn't.

Also, you might want to read up on these concepts:
Occam's razor
Russell's teapot
Burden of proof

I disagree with you. FAR more reasonable than assuming anything about it is admitting the fact that you don't know.

As of right now, we have a grand total of zero data to indicate that god does not exist.

Now, I don't think there is a god, but that is definitely not 'data'

[Mavorpen]

What can you test? That the Roman Empire existed and controlled Judea at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived? No one's disputing that. That the Gospels get the general environment of Jesus' ministry correct? No one's disputing that. Miracles and rising from the dead, now, those are different things.

It is not certain that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the disciple of that name. The book itself has no author's name in it, and "Matthew" was only added in the century after it was written. The Gospel of John says it was composed from testimony of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" but doesn't name him. The identification of the author of that gospel with the disciple John originates more than half a century after Jesus' death. And again, all the writings about Jesus come directly from his followers or from non-Christians writing about Christians and what they believed. There are no documents saying "On the 7th day before the Kalends of October a man called Iesus, from Nazareth in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas was arraigned before the Procurator Pontius Pilatus ..."

Look, believe what you like but don't tell me there is scientific evidence for it when there isn't.

Just because the miracles and the resurrection seem so odd dosen't mean they can be true.

The authorship of the Gospels are well-established fact.

Matthew did wrote Matthew-http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
And John did wrote John- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.php
There is well established evidence that the Matthew and John was indeed authored by the authors with the same names.

But, the amount of secular sources testifying Jesus is noteworthy, 4 sources, of course from the Bible and several secular sources. There is actually no doubt among modern scholars that Jesus existed.

Can you give us sources we can take seriously?

[The Rich Port]

Well... No...
Lack of evidence is evidence of lack... What it isn't is proof…

Not really. You lack any evidence that I own a Mazda. That is not evidence that I do not own a Mazda

If you don't have any documentation that says you own a Mazda, it's great evidence to say you don't own a Mazda.

In fact, if you do actually have a Mazda but no documentation, I can make a safe assumption you stole the Mazda or bought it from someone who stole it, or at least that it isn't your Mazda.

[Mavorpen]

It's important to realize that while there is no conclusive evidence of God's nonexistance, all the data indicate that he very probably doesn't exist. In which case it's no more than reasonable to assume he indeed doesn't.

Also, you might want to read up on these concepts:
Occam's razor
Russell's teapot
Burden of proof

I disagree with you. FAR more reasonable than assuming anything about it is admitting the fact that you don't know.

As of right now, we have a grand total of zero data to indicate that god does not exist.

Now, I don't think there is a god, but that is definitely not 'data'

Lack of evidence in science tells us a lot and drives it as much as tangible data.

[Monkeykind]

Just because the miracles and the resurrection seem so odd dosen't mean they can be true.

The authorship of the Gospels are well-established fact.

Matthew did wrote Matthew-http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/mattdef.php
And John did wrote John- http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.php
There is well established evidence that the Matthew and John was indeed authored by the authors with the same names.

But, the amount of secular sources testifying Jesus is noteworthy, 4 sources, of course from the Bible and several secular sources. There is actually no doubt among modern scholars that Jesus existed.

Can you give us sources we can take seriously?

You can take those seriously.

[Mavorpen]

Can you give us sources we can take seriously?

You can take those seriously.

As someone that's majoring in a science, no, I really can't.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Lesser than the authority of the Gospels does not mean extra-canonical scripture. They are part of the Canon. They were removed because certain "authorities" considered them contrary to their "authority."

Consider wiki.

Until the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had never officially drawn the boundaries of the biblical canon. Doing so had not been considered necessary because the authority of the Scriptures was not considered to be much higher than that of Sacred Tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils. Rejecting these, Luther and other reformers focused on the Protestant doctrine of the Five solas.

It was not until the Protestant Reformers began to insist upon the supreme authority of Scripture alone (the doctrine of sola scriptura) that it became necessary to establish a definitive canon which would include a decision on the 'disputed books'.

Martin Luther[edit]
Main article: Luther's canon
Martin Luther was troubled by four books, the Antilegomena: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. He did propose removing them from the canon,[101][102] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[103][104]

Luther did remove the deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament of his translation of the Bible, placing them in the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[105] Luther also struggled with the Book of Esther in the Old Testament, so did the rabbis at various times. To this writing he applied the test: "Does it urge Christ? Yes, because it tells the story of the survival of the people from whom Christ came."

Martin Luther nor the Protestans were not the first to reject the accuracy of the Apocrypha. Several Early Christian figures rejected the Apocrypha, Jerome who translated the Latin Vulgate rejected it because he believed the Jews established the proper canon. Most of the Church Fathers Origen, Cyril, and Athanaisus also rejected the Apocrypha and many just used it for devotional.

In fact, the Catholic Church only officially declared the Apocrypha a part of the Canon on the Council of Trent held between 1545 and 1563 as a reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent#Canons_and_decrees:

The doctrinal acts are as follows: after reaffirming the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (third session), the decree was passed (fourth session) confirming that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (against Luther's placement of these books in the Apocrypha of his edition) and coordinating church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. The Vulgate translation was affirmed to be authoritative for the text of Scripture.

[WestRedMaple]

I believe what he is doing to debating. It is a debate forum afterall.

Go back and read all of his 1 word responses. He has even admitted to me that he was just picking a fight once. Not only that this isn't a debate. If there is evidence of "God's" existence "God" exists, if there is no evidence (there isn't) then "God" doesn't exist.

That is utterly illogical.

Something either exists or does not, regardless of whether you have found any evidence for it yet.

[Mavorpen]

Go back and read all of his 1 word responses. He has even admitted to me that he was just picking a fight once. Not only that this isn't a debate. If there is evidence of "God's" existence "God" exists, if there is no evidence (there isn't) then "God" doesn't exist.

That is utterly illogical.

Something either exists or does not, regardless of whether you have found any evidence for it yet.

Well...no shit.

That tells us utterly nothing though.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

There's this very basic root of epistemology that assesses what truth and belief are, and how they compare and comprise that which we consider knowledge. We have a Venn diagram of Truth, ie all things that are true in the world and beyond, and of Belief, or Faith, ie all things that we believe without necessary truth. Where these two circles intersect, however, is Knowledge, ie things that we believe to be true (things we know). Graphically, it looks like this.

In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, God is mentioned to have retorted to someone who inquires about His existence that "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". God's existence is dependent on faith. If there is no faith in God, then God does not exist. If God answers the question honestly as to whether or not He exists, then we will know whether or not He exists, which no longer makes His existence something we believe in but something that we believe to be true, ie that which we know. If we know, then we have no belief (faith) in God, and as such it is impossible for Him to exist.

The reason we cannot ever know whether or not God exists, and why this debate will continue for ever, is because you cannot find proof of His existence. You cannot ever know whether or not He exists because that's what makes him God; that's what gives Him (possible) existence. God, really, lives in phase space. His existence is a possibility, and cannot ever, ever, be translated as a possibility of either 1 or 0 because that would no longer make Him a God (even if the result is in His advantage).

I find militant atheism just as ignorant as militant theism. I feel sceptic about both sides, really, and prefer to join the ranks of other agnostics when it comes to the God issue.

Right.

[Mavorpen]

There's this very basic root of epistemology that assesses what truth and belief are, and how they compare and comprise that which we consider knowledge. We have a Venn diagram of Truth, ie all things that are true in the world and beyond, and of Belief, or Faith, ie all things that we believe without necessary truth. Where these two circles intersect, however, is Knowledge, ie things that we believe to be true (things we know). Graphically, it looks like this.

In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, God is mentioned to have retorted to someone who inquires about His existence that "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". God's existence is dependent on faith. If there is no faith in God, then God does not exist. If God answers the question honestly as to whether or not He exists, then we will know whether or not He exists, which no longer makes His existence something we believe in but something that we believe to be true, ie that which we know. If we know, then we have no belief (faith) in God, and as such it is impossible for Him to exist.

The reason we cannot ever know whether or not God exists, and why this debate will continue for ever, is because you cannot find proof of His existence. You cannot ever know whether or not He exists because that's what makes him God; that's what gives Him (possible) existence. God, really, lives in phase space. His existence is a possibility, and cannot ever, ever, be translated as a possibility of either 1 or 0 because that would no longer make Him a God (even if the result is in His advantage).

I find militant atheism just as ignorant as militant theism. I feel sceptic about both sides, really, and prefer to join the ranks of other agnostics when it comes to the God issue.

Right.

So you're agreeing God doesn't exist then? That was fast.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Right.

So you're agreeing God doesn't exist then? That was fast.

No, of course I will always be a theist. I just typed "Right". I was impressed by the 3rd paragraph, actually. The truth is, you cannot find proof of God's existence.

[WestRedMaple]

There is quite a difference between 'I have no reason to believe this exists' and 'I know this does not exist'

The default position is always lack of knowledge

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

Actually, the correct answer is yes. The default position IS lack of knowledge.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Right.

So you're agreeing God doesn't exist then? That was fast.

You do have a very cute flag though. I liked that whatever figure that was in your flag.

[Calisu]

So you're agreeing God doesn't exist then? That was fast.

No, of course I will always be a theist. I just typed "Right". I was impressed by the 3rd paragraph, actually. The truth is, you cannot find proof of God's existence.

therefore god doesn't exist.

[WestRedMaple]

Not really. You lack any evidence that I own a Mazda. That is not evidence that I do not own a Mazda

Yes it is. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence.

No, it is not. You're still confusing lack of evidence and evidence of lack.

If you disagree, then by all means, present your evidence

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

No. The default position is that "X is not true/doesn't exist/etc." That's the entire point of the null hypothesis. To test your hypothesis against.

Actually, the correct answer is yes. The default position IS lack of knowledge.

We all start with axioms to judge evidences.

[Alliir]

If this isn't locked, I've lost faith in the mods.
In other words, "Obvious flamebait is obvious".

And no doubt this will be a breeding ground for hate and trolls and flame all week. Well...

My answer to the question, is yes. I believe he does. I don't care to argue my point, because I'm perfectly happy not getting called an idiotic monkey.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

No, of course I will always be a theist. I just typed "Right". I was impressed by the 3rd paragraph, actually. The truth is, you cannot find proof of God's existence.

therefore god doesn't exist.

You do not have to find proof of God's existence for God to exist. It will actually be futile for me to point evidences leading toward a God for we all judge evidences based on our assumptions.

[Immoren]

No, of course I will always be a theist.

Quite sure of themselves this one is.

Yes it is. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence.

No, it is not. You're still confusing lack of evidence and evidence of lack.

If you disagree, then by all means, present your evidence

How can you build falsifiable hypothesis on negative statement?