Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Tarsonis]

Firstly, let’s clarify. there’s plenty of evidence for a God.

Which God though? I know you're going to answer the Christian God, but the existence of a metaphysical entity that can be called God would not be proof there is an anthropomorphic creator who inspired people to write the Bible. You can use every argument for God to make the same case for Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintō, or other religions' God rather than your specific one.

Thats a separate question.

[Salandriagado]

Inasmuch as such actually exist: no, they wouldn't.

Multi-verse theory necessarily posits existence beyond the universe, otherwise there’s no multiverse.

No it doesn't. It posits a topologically-disconnected universe.

It is, however, extremely strong evidence of non-existence.

It really isn’t.

Yes, it is. In particular, it is evidence of non-existence to exactly the same degree that the ability to observe is evidence of existence. This is a trivial result of basic statistics.

What you just said is "I'm ignoring all of the evidence because I say so", wrapped up in fancy words.

I’m not ignoring evidence, because there’s no evidence to ignore.

Except that there is. Much of it has been mentioned here, in fact. You've ignored it, every time. Let's start with the whole flood thing: it simply never happened, at all.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, it does. The world would look no different with this "god" removed. Thus, this "god" isn't there.

the world wouldn’t exist without God, so no. Incorrect.

Again, you assume your conclusion.

That's just... ungrateful.

Only to you. It doesn’t take away anything from the person to acknowledge God working through them.

Yes, it does. You're literally saying "oh, you did something nice? Must be being mind-controlled by some other entity!"

Not testimony of this form.

Yes, even in this form.

Nope. Someone saying "god exists" does not increase the probability that god exists.

Yes, it is. Absolutely and completely so. You've assumed a naked contradiction, and therefore your system of reasoning is necessarily inconsistent, hence unsound.

I’ve asumed no contradiction. God created the universe, thus all things natural flow from God. There is no contradiction, that’s really just modus ponens. The existence of God is neither conclusively provable nor disprovable, through testing, but can be validly surmised through the application of reason. You may disagree with said reasoning but that really can’t be helped. Having come to the conclusion that God exists, my position is perfectly sound and valid. That you’ve come to a different conclusion doesn’t invalidate mine.

You assume the existence of an omnipotent entity. Such things are inherently contradictory. You also haven't "come to the conclusion that God exists", you've asserted it without any reasoning.

Also, pure reasoning is simply not able to prove the existence of things, in the sense that you're using it here. Analytic and synthetic statements are different things.

[Tarsonis]

Multi-verse theory necessarily posits existence beyond the universe, otherwise there’s no multiverse.

No it doesn't. It posits a topologically-disconnected universe.

Pointless pedantry. Each universe is a self contained system meaning all other universes exist beyond the realm of each other universe. Calling the multiverses the universe doesn’t support your argument it just requires us to come up with a new term for the universe, and insert where appropriate.

For example, we’ll call this universe the Bobverse. God transcends the Bobverse.

It really isn’t.

Yes, it is. In particular, it is evidence of non-existence to exactly the same degree that the ability to observe is evidence of existence. This is a trivial result of basic statistics.

And? We’re not talking statistics we’re talking metaphysics. God as we determine, cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, no proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Further, no proof of existence is only evidence of non-existence in a vacuum. This is only achieved by narrowing the parameters of what you consider acceptable evidence. There is plenty evidence of God’s existence, but nothing you’ve as of yet considered valid.

I’m not ignoring evidence, because there’s no evidence to ignore.

Except that there is. Much of it has been mentioned here, in fact. You've ignored it, every time. Let's start with the whole flood thing: it simply never happened, at all.

That’s evidence the flood never happened, not evidence God doesn’t exist.
(And to clarify I don’t believe in a literal flood. Yet still believe in God)

[Tarsonis]

the world wouldn’t exist without God, so no. Incorrect.

Again, you assume your conclusion.

As do you.

Only to you. It doesn’t take away anything from the person to acknowledge God working through them.

Yes, it does. You're literally saying "oh, you did something nice? Must be being mind-controlled by some other entity!"

No it doesn’t. I teach Catholic Theology. As a teacher of theology I am a representative of the Church and the Church works through me. But the Church does not control me. He that does the works of the Lord, is an instrument of God, but God does not control them to do so, they do so willingly.

Yes, even in this form.

Nope. Someone saying "god exists" does not increase the probability that god exists.

Sure, but that’s not witness testimony that’s idle speculation. “I know God exists because he appeared to me”. Now we’re getting somewhere.

I’ve asumed no contradiction. God created the universe, thus all things natural flow from God. There is no contradiction, that’s really just modus ponens. The existence of God is neither conclusively provable nor disprovable, through testing, but can be validly surmised through the application of reason. You may disagree with said reasoning but that really can’t be helped. Having come to the conclusion that God exists, my position is perfectly sound and valid. That you’ve come to a different conclusion doesn’t invalidate mine.

You assume the existence of an omnipotent entity. Such things are inherently contradictory. You also haven't "come to the conclusion that God exists", you've asserted it without any reasoning.

No I haven’t walked through the 1700 step logion for why I’ve come to the conclusion God exists, doesn’t mean I don’t have one.

Also, pure reasoning is simply not able to prove the existence of things, in the sense that you're using it here. Analytic and synthetic statements are different things.

Sigh, deductions from reason a valid assertions of truth, until so much as that they’re disproven. My deductions have not been disproven, thus they’re still valid.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Multiverse theorists would disagree.

Inasmuch as such actually exist: no, they wouldn't.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

It is, however, extremely strong evidence of non-existence.

Are you saying the lack of observations of something is strong evidence of its non-existence? No, that's the whole problem of Induction right there. The old "there is no such thing as black swans."

[Korhal IVV]

Eliminating the Canaanites and the others -ites is akin to purging cancer cells from a human body. They had the WORST religious practices, like Child sacrifices. Allowing them to live (which was Israel’s big mistake) allowed them to intermarry with Israelites, therefore infecting the chosen people with their relatavistic ideologies (whatever you want to do, do it), and thus setting off the dark times that was the time of the Judges.

Don’t get me started with the Crusades, because Pope Urban only wanted to establish himself as leader of a United Christendom. In other words, not exactly a God-given reason.

"People who don't follow our religion deserve genocide" -- Korhal IVV, 2019.

A dumb statement, if anything.

You are just making yourself look like someone with bad reading comprehension. Where did I say that "We must purge the infidels" or anything related? Nowhere but in your imagination.

Your biased extraction of what I said is dumber than all of the heresies of the last 2,000 years combined.

[Godular]

Multiverse ‘theory’ hardly even qualifies as idle speculation.

While I agree, the point is not everyone agrees with you. Secondly, claiming nothing exists beyond the universe requires the acceptance that the Universe is just a brute fact, but the universe itself contradicts this.

You are incorrect. The universe is rather literally everything. If something were outside the universe, it is not a part of everything, which itself is contradictory.

The universe exists in a linear time trame, t1 to t-infinity. However, we know that t-0 existed as well. A time when the universe did not exist. Thus the existence of the universe is not just a brute fact, it had a cause. A cause, necessitates a transcendent property to effect said cause.

I find it amusing that you accuse me of treating something as a brute fact, and then proceed to do so yourself. And you've got even LESS cause to do so. Time is a human construct, devised as a convenience to assist in describing natural phenomena. For all functional intents and purposes, it has no bearing on universal workings outside of its 'direction'.

Trying to say that a t = 0 existed is incorrect, as we have no means of determining the properties of the universe at such a close interval to what we consider to be the 'beginning'. We don't know if another universe existed before then, if two universes bumped into one another and made a bunch of smaller bubbles that just happen to be growing universes of infinite size. We have no means to look back that far, so you trying to slap any kind of trait to such a thing is beyond laughable.

In ability to observe is not prove of nonexistence.

It is however eminently critical to proving actual existence. Without that evidence to prove the positive claim that your god exists, logic dictates a default to its negation and that we hold any such claims with the weight equivalent to onesuch as yourself stamping their feet and insisting that your imaginary friend DOES exist, durn it!

Correct. However the problem there in lies that all evidence of God is experiential. I having such experiences, have sufficient logical cause to believe in God. Thus for me, the proof positive evidence is met.[/quote]

ALL EVIDENCE IS EXPERIENTIAL. You have to perceive something in order to respond to it. Where YOUR evidence fails is that you seem highly disinclined to show us how to reproduce your purported evidence, and cannot in point of fact do so even if you DID want to.

An example of this would be Will Jimeno, the port authority police officer who survived being buried alive by the rubble in 9/11. While buried Jimeno claims to have a vision of Jesus holding out a bottle of Water. Amazingly, Jimeno and another officer survived 13 harrowing hours entombed in the burning rubble of the South Tower. They were fortunately rescued alive, after being located by Marine Staff Sergeant Karnes who had abruptly left his work to travel all the way from Wilton, CT, (partially on foot once he entered the city) and happened to be walking in the exact spot to hear them after all other rescue operations and suspended for the night.

Now sure, as the ones not having this experience, we might be able to chalk up Karnes' calling to his innate sense of duty instilled by 20 years of honorable service in the Marine Corps, and the visions Jimeno saw as projections of his desire to be rescued and brought about by severe dehydration and injury. But for Jimeno it will always be a religious experience, one he won't ever be shaken from.

However, such evidence is rarely transferable among individuals because it rests entirely on the veracity and authority of the one relating such experiences, as well as the experiences of the individual receiving the account. I having had religious conversion experience, hear of these experiences and accept them as believable. You, having no such experiences yourself (presumably), have no such basis to accept these views as legitimate, and no reason to accept them as evidence of the existence the existence of God.

Long story of short, it is logically sound for you to assume the null hypothesis, while it is not logically sound for me to assume the null hypothesis.

I don't care about testimonials. Stressful situations can mess with memories and perception. And again, don't attribute to intent what can just as easily be explained by dumb fucking luck. Your entire dissertation over this fellow reeks of having left occam's razor behind long ago.

Proper evidence is that which can be reproduced and falsified. You yammering on about multiverse speculation is little more than playing into my point that you keep making unsupported assertions. Until we actually find another universe, you can't make any claims whatsoever about their properties or existence. Nor can they.

Sciencd is quite effective, but it has its limits. As I pointed out with the multiverse bit you subscribe to strict empiricism, but that’s not a position universally held by atheists let alone theists.

The existence of a speculative branch of discussion does not count as a counterproof. Multiverse concepts don’t even qualify as hypotheses.

The point is your view is not even universally held, and yet you've asserted it as true with no real justification.[/quote]

Because the opposing point has no evidence with which to present its case. I don't need to justify a negation in the face of zero tangible evidence. It is the logical default. I don't give a flying fuck if my 'view' is not 'universally held'. There are people who still believe that the Earth is flat. Why yes, I do not hold to the same view. They're still wrong. We have ways of proving that the world is round, and the Greeks knew the world was round well before Columbus tried making his pitch.

Just because people might throw a little concept-from-science-fiction back and forth trying to see if it might actually be workable might have a little bit of mathematical support does not mean that their position is testable or even on the same tier as a hypothesis. Trying to claim 'not everybody agrees with you' is just as much an argumentum ad populum as trying to say 'well there's a billion some odd catholics around, there must be SOMETHING to it'.

There ain't.

And the nature of this forum is that of debate and having your ideas challenged. You bring it up, you back it up. If you were not interested in actual debate, you could have just posted your first piece and left the thread never to return, satisfied that your say was had.

Because, my point was not understood, and had to correct people's understanding of my point multiple times. And I will continue to post until I'm understood. Whether I'm believed is another matter entirely.

I understand it well enough. It yet remains a load of unsupported rot.

[Salandriagado]

Inasmuch as such actually exist: no, they wouldn't.



It is, however, extremely strong evidence of non-existence.

Are you saying the lack of observations of something is strong evidence of its non-existence? No, that's the whole problem of Induction right there. The old "there is no such thing as black swans."

Yes, that's absolutely what I'm saying, and it's absolutely true. In particular: we say that an observation E is evidence for a proposition Q if P(Q|E) > P(Q). But, therefore (for P(E) not zero), P(Q) = P(Q|E)P(E) + P(Q|~E)(1 - P(E)) > P(Q)P(E) + P(Q|~E)(1-P(E)), so P(Q)(1-P(E)) > P(Q|~E)(1-P(E)), hence (for P(E) not 1), P(Q) > P(Q|~E), hence P(~Q|~E) = 1 - P(Q|~E) > 1 - P(Q) = P(~Q). Thus, ~E is evidence for ~Q.

Your problem is that "evidence" and "proof" are not the same word. "There are no black swans" is the correct conclusion to draw if you have no evidence that black swans exist.

[Salandriagado]

"People who don't follow our religion deserve genocide" -- Korhal IVV, 2019.

A dumb statement, if anything.

You are just making yourself look like someone with bad reading comprehension. Where did I say that "We must purge the infidels" or anything related? Nowhere but in your imagination.

Your biased extraction of what I said is dumber than all of the heresies of the last 2,000 years combined.

No, it's literally what you said.

[Salandriagado]

No it doesn't. It posits a topologically-disconnected universe.

Pointless pedantry. Each universe is a self contained system meaning all other universes exist beyond the realm of each other universe. Calling the multiverses the universe doesn’t support your argument it just requires us to come up with a new term for the universe, and insert where appropriate.

For example, we’ll call this universe the Bobverse. God transcends the Bobverse.

No, it isn't different in any way. In particular, all connected components of a topologically disconnected universe are bound by the same fundamental laws of said universe (they just can't interact in any way with each other), and there's no wiggle room for "transcendent beings".

Yes, it is. In particular, it is evidence of non-existence to exactly the same degree that the ability to observe is evidence of existence. This is a trivial result of basic statistics.

And? We’re not talking statistics we’re talking metaphysics. God as we determine, cannot be proven or disproven. Thus, no proof of existence is not proof of non-existence.

Sorry, mathematics doesn't stop existing because it's inconvenient for you. A lack of evidence for something absolutely is evidence against it. I have no idea why you're going on about "proof", because literally nothing that isn't a theorem of mathematics or pure logic can be proved or disproved (including the statements "I exist", "you exist", "Nationstates.net exists", "Cthulu exists", "the earth is flat", etc.), so it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Further, no proof of existence is only evidence of non-existence in a vacuum. This is only achieved by narrowing the parameters of what you consider acceptable evidence. There is plenty evidence of God’s existence, but nothing you’ve as of yet considered valid.

No. Lack of evidence is evidence of absence. No exceptions. There is no evidence. As mentioned, repeatedly, you're simply misusing the word "evidence".

Except that there is. Much of it has been mentioned here, in fact. You've ignored it, every time. Let's start with the whole flood thing: it simply never happened, at all.

That’s evidence the flood never happened, not evidence God doesn’t exist.

(And to clarify I don’t believe in a literal flood. Yet still believe in God)

Substitute "Exodus" then. If your god exists, why is he allowing such blatant lies to be propagated in his name?

[Salandriagado]

Again, you assume your conclusion.

As do you.

Not in the slightest.

Yes, it does. You're literally saying "oh, you did something nice? Must be being mind-controlled by some other entity!"

No it doesn’t. I teach Catholic Theology. As a teacher of theology I am a representative of the Church and the Church works through me. But the Church does not control me. He that does the works of the Lord, is an instrument of God, but God does not control them to do so, they do so willingly.

Sounds like this god is doing fuck all in the arrangement, frankly. Thus, this is not evidence.

Nope. Someone saying "god exists" does not increase the probability that god exists.

Sure, but that’s not witness testimony that’s idle speculation. “I know God exists because he appeared to me”. Now we’re getting somewhere.

That's exactly the same statement. The evidential content is identical. Both are "God exists because I say he does, but I have no evidence to show you".

You assume the existence of an omnipotent entity. Such things are inherently contradictory. You also haven't "come to the conclusion that God exists", you've asserted it without any reasoning.

No I haven’t walked through the 1700 step logion for why I’ve come to the conclusion God exists, doesn’t mean I don’t have one.

You've been asked to, repeatedly, and have failed to provide any justification at all. At this point, that whole "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" thing kicks in, and we come to the obvious conclusion that you don't have any reasoning, and have simply asserted your belief, then gone looking for arguments to prop it up.

Also, pure reasoning is simply not able to prove the existence of things, in the sense that you're using it here. Analytic and synthetic statements are different things.

Sigh, deductions from reason a valid assertions of truth, until so much as that they’re disproven. My deductions have not been disproven, thus they’re still valid.

No, they aren't. You cannot establish facts about the actual nature of the universe (to avoid pedantry, that means "the totality of everything that exists") by pure reason. No exceptions. You can prove that your results hold within some given logical system, but you cannot prove, or even support in any way without going out and gathering some evidence, that your logical system actually applies to the universe.

[Korhal IVV]

A dumb statement, if anything.

You are just making yourself look like someone with bad reading comprehension. Where did I say that "We must purge the infidels" or anything related? Nowhere but in your imagination.

Your biased extraction of what I said is dumber than all of the heresies of the last 2,000 years combined.

No, it's literally what you said.

*Literally what you think I said

Ppfft. Do not assume unless it is stated explicitly.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As Tars said, there is evidence for a God, in the fact that the universal laws have not always been the same, and that the intricacy of the universe, being made up entirely of only three things, should be able to form itself into all multitude of things to form more and more complex existences. It seems to me that chemistry is intelligently designed to arrive at certain points. Moreover, the expansion of the universe from a single point should not be possible given the existence of gravity.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

People have also murdered because they said god tells them so.

Eliminating the Canaanites and the others -ites is akin to purging cancer cells from a human body. They had the WORST religious practices, like Child sacrifices. Allowing them to live (which was Israel’s big mistake) allowed them to intermarry with Israelites, therefore infecting the chosen people with their relatavistic ideologies (whatever you want to do, do it), and thus setting off the dark times that was the time of Judges.

I dunno, this bit here seems rather supporting-genocidey. Even dehumanizing the canaanites by saying they were ‘infecting’ others with stuff.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

As Tars said, there is evidence for a God, in the fact that the universal laws have not always been the same, and that the intricacy of the universe, being made up entirely of only three things, should be able to form itself into all multitude of things to form more and more complex existences. It seems to me that chemistry is intelligently designed to arrive at certain points. Moreover, the expansion of the universe from a single point should not be possible given the existence of gravity.

Argument from disbelief. How ironic.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As Tars said, there is evidence for a God, in the fact that the universal laws have not always been the same, and that the intricacy of the universe, being made up entirely of only three things, should be able to form itself into all multitude of things to form more and more complex existences. It seems to me that chemistry is intelligently designed to arrive at certain points. Moreover, the expansion of the universe from a single point should not be possible given the existence of gravity.

Argument from disbelief. How ironic.

If you found three objects which could be combined into 118 different things, which can be combined into millions of other things up to the point of intelligent life, you'd have disbelief too.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Argument from disbelief. How ironic.

If you found three objects which could be combined into 118 different things, which can be combined into millions of other things up to the point of intelligent life, you'd have disbelief too.

Maybe if I didn’t know better. Thankfully I happen to have a decent grasp of those mechanics, so it doesn’t strike me as requiring some kind of guided hand.

‘I don’t get it, ergo God’ is worse than a God-Of-The-Gaps argument.

Oh, and technically it’s six, but I’ll let Sal correct me if I’m being too simplistic.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Argument from disbelief. How ironic.

If you found three objects which could be combined into 118 different things, which can be combined into millions of other things up to the point of intelligent life, you'd have disbelief too.

>Disputing fusion
You might as well wholly deny that the hundreds or so megatons of thermonuclear weapons we detonated so far ever happened.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If you found three objects which could be combined into 118 different things, which can be combined into millions of other things up to the point of intelligent life, you'd have disbelief too.

Maybe if I didn’t know better. Thankfully I happen to have a decent grasp of those mechanics, so it doesn’t strike me as requiring some kind of guided hand.

‘I don’t get it, ergo God’ is worse than a God-Of-The-Gaps argument.

Oh, and technically it’s six, but I’ll let Sal correct me if I’m being too simplistic.

I get atomic bonding, it's that such happens to such a complex level that convinces me it is designed.

[ArenaC]

because, how would a celestial being like that exist
ever heard of science, christians?

[Minzerland II]

If you found three objects which could be combined into 118 different things, which can be combined into millions of other things up to the point of intelligent life, you'd have disbelief too.

>Disputing fusion
You might as well wholly deny that the hundreds or so megatons of thermonuclear weapons we detonated so far ever happened.

As far as I can tell, he isn’t disputing fusion but expressing disbelief that they combined on their own without design.

[United Muscovite Nations]

because, how would a celestial being like that exist
ever heard of science, christians?

St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas theorized that God exists outside of time and space, because time and space are aspects of creation and the universe.

[United Muscovite Nations]

>Disputing fusion
You might as well wholly deny that the hundreds or so megatons of thermonuclear weapons we detonated so far ever happened.

As far as I can tell, he isn’t disputing fusion but expressing disbelief that they combined on their own without design.

^

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Maybe if I didn’t know better. Thankfully I happen to have a decent grasp of those mechanics, so it doesn’t strike me as requiring some kind of guided hand.

‘I don’t get it, ergo God’ is worse than a God-Of-The-Gaps argument.

Oh, and technically it’s six, but I’ll let Sal correct me if I’m being too simplistic.

I get atomic bonding, it's that such happens to such a complex level that convinces me it is designed.

Never attribute to intent that which can just as easily be explained by dumb luck. A bajillion monkeys typing randomly over an infinite period of time will produce the works of Shakespeare at some point, but that doesn’t make it anything particularly special.

Being lucky enough to be watching when it actually happens doesn’t inherently mean you were favored by some divine force either. Our presence here on Earth is only special because of its statistical improbability, and trying to slap intent behind it is frankly insulting.