Is god real?

[Lauchlin]

If we're not assuming that the universe is knowable, there's no reason to do or investigate anything. We'd all still be huddled in caves, wishing we could make fire, but that pesky unknowable universe wouldn't be consistent enough for us to create fire the same way twice.

It's totally valid to assume the universe is knowable, look around, see absolutely no evidence for god, and then decide that there's no reason to believe a god exists unless further evidence is provided. Anyone who does otherwise is being disingenuous, or is a theist and has their own reasons to believe what they do.

You constitute a lack of evidence for a lack of existance. Thats simply spurious logic. 'I have a brother. That fact is either true or not. But you have no evidence either way. So tell me, do I have a brother? The lack of evidence is not proof either way.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Someone used this exact same example earlier in the thread. I'll believe you have a brother if you tell me, if I have no reason to think you don't. If I notice that your brother does not live where you claim he lives, doesn't work where you claim he works, and isn't married to the person you claim he's married to, I will start to question whether you were lying to me.

[Ashmoria]

Since faith is the basis of religion, I'd like to hear some of this 'hard' evidense...

There was no great flood, the world was not created in six days, we've discovered lightning bolts aren't actually thrown by Zeus or Thor, proclaimed miracles are demonstrated to either be illusions, delusions, or just statistically unlikely events, blah blah blah blah.

If you're getting into the religious people who have acknowledged that their religions, taking literally, don't make sense, their gods are all still so internally contradictory and illogical that they're obvious human-constructed attempts to reconcile the type of god they'd want to worship with the type of world that actually exists.

Then, if you're getting into the impossible to perceive, impossible to measure, doesn't interfere in the universe type of god, you have absolutely no reason to suspect that kind of god exists, and it's a silly dodge.

there is reasonable evidence tht the god of the bible doesnt exist or that thor doesnt exist or that vishnu doesnt exist

that is why modern believers have moved the goalpost of knowledge well into the "unknowable" side of the field.

that there was no worldwide flood doesnt mean that there is no all knowing all powerful god who exists outside of our reality yet is part and parcel of every bit of that reality.

it doesnt seem particularly likely to ME but other people are of a different frame of mind.

some "agnostics" are people who understand that should god exist he is so far out of our understanding that we can never know for sure what he is, where he is or whether or not he is at all.

some dont believe in any god at all but are willing to grant the possibility that they are wrong.

some believe that there IS a god but understand that there is no way to know the details of that god. they are agnostics because they cant choose a particular story to believe in or because they realize that none of the stories of god can possibly be "true".

and some are athiests who are too afraid to admit it so they pretend that they are undecided--your cowards.

[Ifreann]

*Looks around*
There is no god.

Considering there are billions, if not trillions, of stars and many chemical possibilities, I think its not at all surprising that life occurred. It was just luck that it occurred here, on Earth.

EDIT: I would like to pose a question to you. Do you believe in Vishnu? If not, why? Do you believe in Baal? If not, why? Do you believe in Zeus? If not, why? Do you believe in any other god other than your own? If not, why?

All Gods are one in the same IMO, its just interesting that alot of snide atheists tend to attack mainly the western Christian church, and tend not to critisise the many "pagans" that are on NS.

Fancy that, people in the West focussing their religious discussions on the biggest single religion in the West. Imagine, people who were raised Christian talking to people who were raised Christian without having much to say about Hinduism or Buddhism. How utterly fascinating.

[Kylarosa]

You constitute a lack of evidence for a lack of existance. Thats simply spurious logic. 'I have a brother. That fact is either true or not. But you have no evidence either way. So tell me, do I have a brother? The lack of evidence is not proof either way.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Someone used this exact same example earlier in the thread. I'll believe you have a brother if you tell me, if I have no reason to think you don't. If I notice that your brother does not live where you claim he lives, doesn't work where you claim he works, and isn't married to the person you claim he's married to, I will start to question whether you were lying to me.

But the fact of his existance or lack is independent of what I tell you. The universe doesn't bend based on what you believe.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. - I think that example just disproved that reasoning. The correct stance is 'I don't know'.

[Lauchlin]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Someone used this exact same example earlier in the thread. I'll believe you have a brother if you tell me, if I have no reason to think you don't. If I notice that your brother does not live where you claim he lives, doesn't work where you claim he works, and isn't married to the person you claim he's married to, I will start to question whether you were lying to me.

But the fact of his existance or lack is independent of what I tell you. The universe doesn't bend based on what you believe.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. - I think that example just disproved that reasoning. The correct stance is 'I don't know'.

Of course the universe doesn't bend on what I believe. Who made that claim? I said I'll believe you if you tell me as long as I have no reason not to. Your example proved that reasoning, because if I look for evidence and there isn't any, that is evidence that your brother doesn't exist.

If you're defining your brother as indefinable and unobservable, then I will rightly think you're an idiot.

[Farnhamia]

God is Real, so be quiet

Deus é gordo ...

[Kylarosa]

There was no great flood, the world was not created in six days, we've discovered lightning bolts aren't actually thrown by Zeus or Thor, proclaimed miracles are demonstrated to either be illusions, delusions, or just statistically unlikely events, blah blah blah blah.

If you're getting into the religious people who have acknowledged that their religions, taking literally, don't make sense, their gods are all still so internally contradictory and illogical that they're obvious human-constructed attempts to reconcile the type of god they'd want to worship with the type of world that actually exists.

Then, if you're getting into the impossible to perceive, impossible to measure, doesn't interfere in the universe type of god, you have absolutely no reason to suspect that kind of god exists, and it's a silly dodge.

there is reasonable evidence tht the god of the bible doesnt exist or that thor doesnt exist or that vishnu doesnt exist

that is why modern believers have moved the goalpost of knowledge well into the "unknowable" side of the field.

that there was no worldwide flood doesnt mean that there is no all knowing all powerful god who exists outside of our reality yet is part and parcel of every bit of that reality.

it doesnt seem particularly likely to ME but other people are of a different frame of mind.

some "agnostics" are people who understand that should god exist he is so far out of our understanding that we can never know for sure what he is, where he is or whether or not he is at all.

some dont believe in any god at all but are willing to grant the possibility that they are wrong.

some believe that there IS a god but understand that there is no way to know the details of that god. they are agnostics because they cant choose a particular story to believe in or because they realize that none of the stories of god can possibly be "true".

and some are athiests who are too afraid to admit it so they pretend that they are undecided--your cowards.

I'd like to give an example. The great flood did actually happen as was chronicled by babalonian historical documents, but you have to consider what the 'world' meant for the people who wrote the bible. Their geographical knowledge of the world was limited. There was a flood 4,000 years ago in the middle east and that constituted their world. Our definition of the world is different today because we have more knowledge then they did. Its called cultural bias. So now you're either taking the absolutist stances that either god doesn't exist or if he does exist everything written about him must be factual regardless of any other cultural variables or circumstances. Yes thats perfectly logical.....

[United Faith (Ancient)]

Hello friends, before most try and nail down anything disproving the possibility a God. We must take a few steps back and realize the creation of the universe. Most will say its logicaly valid to believe there is no god. This is not even the case! The creation of the universe is perfect evidence of a God in general, which one must first realize before arguing anything else. Let me explain me point.
If you ask ask a Atheist for example what created the universe they just might say something like "well the big bang," or "Some kind of hydrogen particle." This is fine only to when we ask them "what made the big bang or that peice of hydrogen." They have no answer, which is fine i have no problem with them admitting there ignorance. However it is always best to tell them why there explanation of the universe is invalid. Heres why, in order for any of those two items to have created the universe they must have been infinite. And if thats the case we could NEVER get to where we are today, NEVER. let me explain its like to say from where you are and to the nearest hotel is a infinite amount of lakes. You could never finish the lakes to get to the hotel. So those two ideas are invalid. That is why we know there is a creator of the universe.

[Kylarosa]

But the fact of his existance or lack is independent of what I tell you. The universe doesn't bend based on what you believe.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. - I think that example just disproved that reasoning. The correct stance is 'I don't know'.

Of course the universe doesn't bend on what I believe. Who made that claim? I said I'll believe you if you tell me as long as I have no reason not to. Your example proved that reasoning, because if I look for evidence and there isn't any, that is evidence that your brother doesn't exist.

If you're defining your brother as indefinable and unobservable, then I will rightly think you're an idiot.

Its not evidence that he doesn't exist since science can't prove a negative actually.
The evidence of absense is an absolutist point of view implying that the universe is now as you think it is. 'Bent to your will' That is not necessarily true. One doesn't lead to another.

[Ashmoria]

there is reasonable evidence tht the god of the bible doesnt exist or that thor doesnt exist or that vishnu doesnt exist

that is why modern believers have moved the goalpost of knowledge well into the "unknowable" side of the field.

that there was no worldwide flood doesnt mean that there is no all knowing all powerful god who exists outside of our reality yet is part and parcel of every bit of that reality.

it doesnt seem particularly likely to ME but other people are of a different frame of mind.

some "agnostics" are people who understand that should god exist he is so far out of our understanding that we can never know for sure what he is, where he is or whether or not he is at all.

some dont believe in any god at all but are willing to grant the possibility that they are wrong.

some believe that there IS a god but understand that there is no way to know the details of that god. they are agnostics because they cant choose a particular story to believe in or because they realize that none of the stories of god can possibly be "true".

and some are athiests who are too afraid to admit it so they pretend that they are undecided--your cowards.

I'd like to give an example. The great flood did actually happen as was chronicled by babalonian historical documents, but you have to consider what the 'world' meant for the people who wrote the bible. Their geographical knowledge of the world was limited. There was a flood 4,000 years ago in the middle east and that constituted their world. Our definition of the world is different today because we have more knowledge then they did. Its called cultural bias. So now you're either taking the absolutist stances that either god doesn't exist or if he does exist everything written about him must be factual regardless of any other cultural variables or circumstances. Yes thats perfectly logical.....

you can give that example but even within a local very big flood you have to get over the hurdle of god telling a 100 year old man to build a boat that it takes decades to build and then put 2 (or of every kind of animal on it and float around for 40 days while absolutely everything and every one else died.

and have that boat end up most of the way up a very tall mountain.

the bible is a work of theology not a book of history. finding bits and pieces that might be true if you take out all the details provided by the story doesnt really cut it as proof of anything.

but yeah, if you are going to insist on proof of god in the bible or disproving "god" because the bible isnt accurate you are fighting a fight that was given up long ago by all thinking believers.

[Lauchlin]

I'd like to give an example. The great flood did actually happen as was chronicled by babalonian historical documents, but you have to consider what the 'world' meant for the people who wrote the bible. Their geographical knowledge of the world was limited. There was a flood 4,000 years ago in the middle east and that constituted their world. Our definition of the world is different today because we have more knowledge then they did. Its called cultural bias. So now you're either taking the absolutist stances that either god doesn't exist or if he does exist everything written about him must be factual regardless of any other cultural variables or circumstances. Yes thats perfectly logical.....

Maybe the Jews just ripped off the Tale of Gilgamesh for the flood story. The fact that it occurs in Gilgamesh and Genesis doesn't mean it actually happened; it means the Jews were living in Babylon for a long time.

She didn't make the claim you're attributing to her, either. There are people who claim these things written about their god are factual. If these things are demonstrably false, the god they believe in does not exist. It has nothing to do with factual variables. Call the bronze age Israelites ignorant if you want, but modern people believe the story literally. There are people who post regularly in this forum who will defend it as being true.

[United Districts of 1]

Hello friends, before most try and nail down anything disproving the possibility a God. We must take a few steps back and realize the creation of the universe. Most will say its logicaly valid to believe there is no god. This is not even the case! The creation of the universe is perfect evidence of a God in general, which one must first realize before arguing anything else. Let me explain me point.
If you ask ask a Atheist for example what created the universe they just might say something like "well the big bang," or "Some kind of hydrogen particle." This is fine only to when we ask them "what made the big bang or that peice of hydrogen." They have no answer, which is fine i have no problem with them admitting there ignorance. However it is always best to tell them why there explanation of the universe is invalid. Heres why, in order for any of those two items to have created the universe they must have been infinite. And if thats the case we could NEVER get to where we are today, NEVER. let me explain its like to say from where you are and to the nearest hotel is a infinite amount of lakes. You could never finish the lakes to get to the hotel. So those two ideas are invalid. That is why we know there is a creator of the universe.

I feel enlightened, but your right evolution does not disprove god. It only reinforces his excistence.

[Lauchlin]

Of course the universe doesn't bend on what I believe. Who made that claim? I said I'll believe you if you tell me as long as I have no reason not to. Your example proved that reasoning, because if I look for evidence and there isn't any, that is evidence that your brother doesn't exist.

If you're defining your brother as indefinable and unobservable, then I will rightly think you're an idiot.

Its not evidence that he doesn't exist since science can't prove a negative actually.
The evidence of absense is an absolutist point of view implying that the universe is now as you think it is. 'Bent to your will' That is not necessarily true. One doesn't lead to another.

So, you're saying that science believes all things exist that cannot be disproven?

I think you need to repeat that Philosophy of Science 100 class, or wherever you're getting your information from.

[Kylarosa]

I'd like to give an example. The great flood did actually happen as was chronicled by babalonian historical documents, but you have to consider what the 'world' meant for the people who wrote the bible. Their geographical knowledge of the world was limited. There was a flood 4,000 years ago in the middle east and that constituted their world. Our definition of the world is different today because we have more knowledge then they did. Its called cultural bias. So now you're either taking the absolutist stances that either god doesn't exist or if he does exist everything written about him must be factual regardless of any other cultural variables or circumstances. Yes thats perfectly logical.....

Maybe the Jews just ripped off the Tale of Gilgamesh for the flood story. The fact that it occurs in Gilgamesh and Genesis doesn't mean it actually happened; it means the Jews were living in Babylon for a long time.

She didn't make the claim you're attributing to her, either. There are people who claim these things written about their god are factual. If these things are demonstrably false, the god they believe in does not exist. It has nothing to do with factual variables. Call the bronze age Israelites ignorant if you want, but modern people believe the story literally. There are people who post regularly in this forum who will defend it as being true.

Hod on now you are confusing two issues, Religion and god are two separate entities. It doesn't matter what people have said or have not said. You do undertand cultural bias?

[Ashmoria]

Call the bronze age Israelites ignorant if you want, but modern people believe the story literally. There are people who post regularly in this forum who will defend it as being true.

yes there are.

but they arent the majority of believers.

[Kylarosa]

Its not evidence that he doesn't exist since science can't prove a negative actually.
The evidence of absense is an absolutist point of view implying that the universe is now as you think it is. 'Bent to your will' That is not necessarily true. One doesn't lead to another.

So, you're saying that science believes all things exist that cannot be disproven?

I think you need to repeat that Philosophy of Science 100 class, or wherever you're getting your information from.

It advocates the possibility of it, yes, since it is not falsifiable. Try reading some scientific philosophy please. But it is not saying it does exist or it does not exist.
And by the way to beleive in something that cannot be disproven means it was proven sometime in the past scientfically so that is correct.
You can't disprove something that was never proven.

[Lauchlin]

Hod on now you are confusing two issues, Religion and god are two separate entities. It doesn't matter what people have said or have not said. You do undertand cultural bias?

I do understand cultural bias, and as I said, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Religion and god are two separate entities, but religion is the framework in which the vast majority of believers choose to define God. To many people, God literally did the things that are attributed to him in the Bible or in the Koran. If those things are demonstrably false, the god that they have defined, the one that is a character in the book they are referencing, is fictional.

You can move the goalposts back from that all you like, to justify your own positions. If you talk about it publicly, though, you will be called out for being disingenuous, and claims about cultural bias do nothing to negate that.

[Kylarosa]

And that is why my point of view is correct.

[Lauchlin]

So, you're saying that science believes all things exist that cannot be disproven?

I think you need to repeat that Philosophy of Science 100 class, or wherever you're getting your information from.

It advocates the possibility of it, yes, since it is not falsifiable. Try reading some scientific philosophy please. But it is not saying it does exist or it does not exist.
And by the way to beleive in something that cannot be disproven means it was proven sometime in the past scientfically so that is correct.
You can't disprove something that was never proven.

I've read enough of it, and have done enough actual science to have a grasp on how it works. I'm rounding you down from a 100-level philosophy class to a Wikipedia article now, but I still recommend you go reread it. Heck a dictionary might help you understand what "disprove" means.

[Kylarosa]

Hod on now you are confusing two issues, Religion and god are two separate entities. It doesn't matter what people have said or have not said. You do undertand cultural bias?

I do understand cultural bias, and as I said, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Religion and god are two separate entities, but religion is the framework in which the vast majority of believers choose to define God. To many people, God literally did the things that are attributed to him in the Bible or in the Koran. If those things are demonstrably false, the god that they have defined, the one that is a character in the book they are referencing, is fictional.

You can move the goalposts back from that all you like, to justify your own positions. If you talk about it publicly, though, you will be called out for being disingenuous, and claims about cultural bias do nothing to negate that.

Do you listen to your own argument. Cultural bias is a variable of religion. Then you declare cultural bias is irrelavent and use religion as a determinisation of whether there is a god or not without cultural context (cultural bias).
And the existance of god is independent of any one religion or of the belief of any people. God either does or does not exist. If other people use spurious logic in thier assessment of whether god exists or not is not my concern.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Hod on now you are confusing two issues, Religion and god are two separate entities. It doesn't matter what people have said or have not said. You do undertand cultural bias?

I do understand cultural bias, and as I said, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Religion and god are two separate entities, but religion is the framework in which the vast majority of believers choose to define God. To many people, God literally did the things that are attributed to him in the Bible or in the Koran. If those things are demonstrably false, the god that they have defined, the one that is a character in the book they are referencing, is fictional.

You can move the goalposts back from that all you like, to justify your own positions. If you talk about it publicly, though, you will be called out for being disingenuous, and claims about cultural bias do nothing to negate that.

What's your point? The vast majority is not relevant to this discussion.

[Kylarosa]

It advocates the possibility of it, yes, since it is not falsifiable. Try reading some scientific philosophy please. But it is not saying it does exist or it does not exist.
And by the way to beleive in something that cannot be disproven means it was proven sometime in the past scientfically so that is correct.
You can't disprove something that was never proven.

I've read enough of it, and have done enough actual science to have a grasp on how it works. I'm rounding you down from a 100-level philosophy class to a Wikipedia article now, but I still recommend you go reread it. Heck a dictionary might help you understand what "disprove" means.

Then I'm amazed you haven't read poppler one of the greatest scientific philosophers of modern times. You are now attempting to raise your ego by establishing that you 'claim' to know more by demoting my knowledge to a 'wiki' article. Not a very good tactic as it doesn't further your argument.

[Ifreann]

Hello friends, before most try and nail down anything disproving the possibility a God. We must take a few steps back and realize the creation of the universe. Most will say its logicaly valid to believe there is no god. This is not even the case! The creation of the universe is perfect evidence of a God in general, which one must first realize before arguing anything else. Let me explain me point.

This should be interesting.

If you ask ask a Atheist for example what created the universe they just might say something like "well the big bang," or "Some kind of hydrogen particle." This is fine only to when we ask them "what made the big bang or that peice of hydrogen." They have no answer, which is fine i have no problem with them admitting there ignorance.

Of course, theists can no better answer the question. They can explain that they believe their god(s) created the universe, but this hardly means they're right.

However it is always best to tell them why there explanation of the universe is invalid. Heres why, in order for any of those two items to have created the universe they must have been infinite.

Why?

And if thats the case we could NEVER get to where we are today, NEVER. let me explain its like to say from where you are and to the nearest hotel is a infinite amount of lakes. You could never finish the lakes to get to the hotel.

So? How is the formation of the universe anything like that?

So those two ideas are invalid.

When you describe them as invalid then yes, they are. Not that it matters, since this is nothing more than a strawman you've built.

That is why we know there is a creator of the universe.

And that creator obviously doesn't need a creator itself, just because, right?

[Lauchlin]

Do you listen to your own argument. Cultural bias is a variable of religion. Then you declare cultural bias is irrelavent and use religion as a determinisation of whether there is a god or not without cultural context (cultural bias).

Incorrect. In this context, I was using religion as a framework for defining a particular god. That has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with the existence of a god as defined by a particular religion.

And the existance of god is independent of any one religion or of the belief of any people. God either does or does not exist. If other people use spurious logic in thier assessment of whether god exists or not is not my concern.

But the only reason anyone suspects that any god exists is because of religion. This is where you could make an argument for cultural bias, but I don't think that's necessary. God either exists, or he doesn't. The way he has been defined by most believers indicates that he doesn't. The way he has been defined by a few armchair philosophers as unknowable and untestable is unknowable and untestable, but there is absolutely no reason to suspect a god of that type exists. Proponents of it are being intellectually dishonest, either for the understandable reason of protecting their concept of the universe, or for the less understandable reason of trying to sound intelligent and impartial while talking about religion.

[Lauchlin]

I do understand cultural bias, and as I said, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Religion and god are two separate entities, but religion is the framework in which the vast majority of believers choose to define God. To many people, God literally did the things that are attributed to him in the Bible or in the Koran. If those things are demonstrably false, the god that they have defined, the one that is a character in the book they are referencing, is fictional.

You can move the goalposts back from that all you like, to justify your own positions. If you talk about it publicly, though, you will be called out for being disingenuous, and claims about cultural bias do nothing to negate that.

What's your point? The vast majority is not relevant to this discussion.

It is relevant, because that is how God is generally defined. If you are talking about something else, you're not really talking about God. You're talking about the intellectual dodge you've developed so you can pretend that there is a valid middle ground between belief and disbelief.

I've read enough of it, and have done enough actual science to have a grasp on how it works. I'm rounding you down from a 100-level philosophy class to a Wikipedia article now, but I still recommend you go reread it. Heck a dictionary might help you understand what "disprove" means.

Then I'm amazed you haven't read poppler one of the greatest scientific philosophers of modern times. You are now attempting to raise your ego by establishing that you 'claim' to know more by demoting my knowledge to a 'wiki' article. Not a very good tactic as it doesn't further your argument.

I'm not trying to raise my ego, I'm saying that you have a very shaky grasp on what you're talking about. If I were more patient, I would outline all the ways in which you are confused, but I'm lazy, so I suggested you go reread whatever you've read to try to get a better understanding.

You 100% can disprove things that have never been proven. That is basically what science is all about.