Is god real?

[Kylarosa]

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.

Then this does not further your argument to the existance of 'a' god. This is not what is being argued.

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.

Actually a belief in a god doesn't require a religion to propagate that belief. How did religion start then with the first few people if they did not believe in the concept of a creator before religion began? Also there are genetic components believed attributable to religion.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

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.

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.

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.

Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

[Fson]

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.

Not everyone is from the west that uses this form and its pretty tedious the same debates over and over again with self righteous believers arguing with arrogant atheists, its boring change the record.


and also don't be so condescending and needlessly rude, i assume it wasn't how you where taught to behave when you where wee.

[Hydesland]

Then I'm amazed you haven't read poppler one of the greatest scientific philosophers of modern times.

Popper*

[The Parkus Empire]

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.

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.

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.

Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

But "God", specifically as the entity referenced by most religions, pretty much demonstrably doesn't exist. There could always be some incomprehensible element to the beginning of the universe, but it's a stretch to call that "God" in the same thread the term is used religiously, and even more of stretch to think such an element is relevant to this thread or anyone's life.

[Ifreann]

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.

Not everyone is from the west that uses this form

Not every, but most.

and its pretty tedious the same debates over and over again with self righteous believers arguing with arrogant atheists, its boring change the record.

Or you could find another forum. NSG has been repeating its arguments for as long as its existed, and will likely continue to do so. Obviously these are the things that the members here want to talk about, or we'd stop and talk about something else.

and also don't be so condescending and needlessly rude, i assume it wasn't how you where taught to behave when you where wee.

No, I learned it all on my own

[Kylarosa]

Then I'm amazed you haven't read poppler one of the greatest scientific philosophers of modern times.

Popper*

mistype..

[Lauchlin]

Actually a belief in a god doesn't require a religion to propagate that belief. How did religion start then with the first few people if they did not believe in the concept of a creator before religion began? Also there are genetic components believed attributable to religion.

Gods and religion were invented as an explanatory framework. As actual understanding of the universe progressed, God was god-of-the-gaps'ed out of the universe into the loveable indefinable, unobservable, inactive one that armchair philosophers everywhere like to argue for. There is no reason to believe in any god in the 21st century because there is nothing left to explain that God is a good explanation for; the only reason the concept still exists is cultural inertia.

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.

It has everything to do with the existence of that god.

Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

It's intellectually dishonest because there is absolutely no reason to suspect that kind of god that you're describing exists.

[Unhealthy2]

Negative energy from where?

Gravitational fields.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.


Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

But "God", specifically as the entity referenced by most religions, pretty much demonstrably doesn't exist. There could always be some incomprehensible element to the beginning of the universe, but it's a stretch to call that "God" in the same thread the term is used religiously, and even more of stretch to think such an element is relevant to this thread or anyone's life.

It's not important if this entity is relevant to anyone's life (not for purposes of this discussion at least). Hell even the God referenced by most religions has no real demostratable evidence against Him. His exploits maybe.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then I'm amazed you haven't read poppler one of the greatest scientific philosophers of modern times.

Popper*

The eminent, 20th Century, Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, whom you'd do well to familiarize yourself with the works of.

[Kylarosa]

The proper position is 'I don't know' if there is a god or not since there is no evidence either way. It can't be an absolutely yes or no answer. Only a scientific theory or something proven through experimentation can be disproven. That is scientifc philosophy.

[Kylarosa]

Popper*

The eminent, 20th Century, Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, whom you'd do well to familiarize yourself with the works of.

know of him, nothing amazing.

[Kylarosa]

Actually a belief in a god doesn't require a religion to propagate that belief. How did religion start then with the first few people if they did not believe in the concept of a creator before religion began? Also there are genetic components believed attributable to religion.

Gods and religion were invented as an explanatory framework. As actual understanding of the universe progressed, God was god-of-the-gaps'ed out of the universe into the loveable indefinable, unobservable, inactive one that armchair philosophers everywhere like to argue for. There is no reason to believe in any god in the 21st century because there is nothing left to explain that God is a good explanation for; the only reason the concept still exists is cultural inertia.

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.

It has everything to do with the existence of that god.

Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

It's intellectually dishonest because there is absolutely no reason to suspect that kind of god that you're describing exists.

you can't seem to objectify the question. Remove religion from the question and lets talk about an independent phenomenon i.e. God. The explnatery framework has been contorted with cultural bias and cannot be used as solid evidence either way.

[Unhealthy2]

The proper position is 'I don't know' if there is a god or not since there is no evidence either way. It can't be an absolutely yes or no answer.

Big difference between "No evidence either way." and "It can't be an absolutely yes or no answer." There's definitely good, strong reasons to doubt. Of course it can't be an absolute no. You know what else you can't absolutely know for sure? If you hands really exist. If your house is not just an optical illusion. Do we really have to play the solipsism game again?

Only a scientific theory or something proven through experimentation can be disproven.

What do you mean by proof, because nothing outside of mathematics can really be proven.

That is scientifc philosophy.

No it isn't.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's not important if this entity is relevant to anyone's life (not for purposes of this discussion at least).

No, but your proposed idea of: "Something at the beginning (that might not have been a something in the conventional sense) might have done something that we don't know something about, and that something could have happened. I term this possible something, utterly impossible to elaborate upon, 'God'."

Is really not useful for any debate or conversation whatever.

Hell even the God referenced by most religions has no real demostratable evidence against Him. His exploits maybe.

Only in the sense that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny do.

[Lauchlin]

you can't seem to objectify the question. Remove religion from the question and lets talk about an independent phenomenon i.e. God. The explnatery framework has been contorted with cultural bias and cannot be used as solid evidence either way.

Without religion, there is no reason to suspect that God exists. Therefore, I don't believe in it.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

The existence or non-existence of God has zero to do with a particular religion's definition of him.

It has everything to do with the existence of that god.

So?

Again, why does the understanding that if there is a God, He is so far beyond human comprehension that it is ridiculous and even somewhat childish to contmplate it constitute intellectual dishonesty? I would think that making a claim to have any knowledge would be intellectually dishonest.

It's intellectually dishonest because there is absolutely no reason to suspect that kind of god that you're describing exists.

There is absolutely no reason to say He doesn't. No matter how you break it down you haven't provided a single shred of credible evidence.

[Lauchlin]

There is absolutely no reason to say He doesn't. No matter how you break it down you haven't provided a single shred of credible evidence.

Do you honestly not see how this is a dodge? Why would you seriously consider the possibility of something that there is literally no reason to believe in? Giving equal credence to both sides in that situation is beyond absurd.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

It's not important if this entity is relevant to anyone's life (not for purposes of this discussion at least).

No, but your proposed idea of: "Something at the beginning (that might not have been a something in the conventional sense) might have done something that we don't know something about, and that something could have happened. I term this possible something, utterly impossible to elaborate upon, 'God'."

Is really not useful for any debate or conversation whatever.

I have no proposed idea. In fact that's kinda my point.

Hell even the God referenced by most religions has no real demostratable evidence against Him. His exploits maybe.

Only in the sense that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny do.

Fair enough.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

There is absolutely no reason to say He doesn't. No matter how you break it down you haven't provided a single shred of credible evidence.

Do you honestly not see how this is a dodge? Why would you seriously consider the possibility of something that there is literally no reason to believe in? Giving equal credence to both sides in that situation is beyond absurd.

I see how it could be a dodge. That doesn't make it less true.

[Kylarosa]

The proper position is 'I don't know' if there is a god or not since there is no evidence either way. It can't be an absolutely yes or no answer.

Big difference between "No evidence either way." and "It can't be an absolutely yes or no answer." There's definitely good, strong reasons to doubt. Of course it can't be an absolute no. You know what else you can't absolutely know for sure? If you hands really exist. If your house is not just an optical illusion. Do we really have to play the solipsism game again?

Only a scientific theory or something proven through experimentation can be disproven.

What do you mean by proof, because nothing outside of mathematics can really be proven.

That is scientifc philosophy.

No it isn't.

Ok, you berated me and in doing so agreed with me.
I have to use colloquial terms here but you're right about the word proof outside of a maths proof can only be used colloquialy and not scientifically. You observe hypothyesis, undergo experimentation and re-evaluate. Eventually there is so much evidence from multiple fields all saying the same thing that it becomes obvious and becomes fact. But according to popper all laws, proofs and theories are falsifiable so in that stringent sense nothing can be definetely 'proved'. According to falsifiablity these are the only things which can be falsifiable. Everything outside of current scientific observation, science doesn't have a definitive stance on because of the nature of the scientific mechansism and so the position is 'I don't know'- the first tenant of science.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I know this is a touchy subject to some people, however due to my recent observations I see that most people in Nationstates can have a good argument without throwing in rage, or insults so let the discussions begin.

Personally I used to believe in god but now I just don't see how its possible.

As the agnostic I have become, I am undecided in that belief. God may exist or not.

[Ifreann]

The eminent, 20th Century, Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, whom you'd do well to familiarize yourself with the works of.

know of him, nothing amazing.

Him?

[Kylarosa]

you can't seem to objectify the question. Remove religion from the question and lets talk about an independent phenomenon i.e. God. The explnatery framework has been contorted with cultural bias and cannot be used as solid evidence either way.

Without religion, there is no reason to suspect that God exists. Therefore, I don't believe in it.

Of course there is a reason. And religion and the actuality of gods existance are independent which is why your reasoning is flawed as I've said 50 times and demonstrated with the brother demonstration.
People suspected that god existed before religion.