Is god real?

[Free Soviets]

No, what he is describing is implicit atheism. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of knowledge.

Agnostic(noun):a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Origin: Prefix A (meaning non, as in asexual) plus the greeek word gnōtós, which means known. In essence the, word itself means "no knowledge".

exactly.

atheism: a claim about existence
agnosticism: a claim about knowledge of existence - importantly, it is a false claim, since the standard it sets for knowledge is bullshit. if the standard required for agnosticism to be true was the proper standard for knowledge, then we'd have to have almost universal skepticism about everything. cause and effect, other minds, the external world...

[New Hampshyre]

I don't know and I think it is impossible to ever really know (until you're dead, obviously).

It's very possible. You can KNOW that a defined god does not exist just like you can know that a square circle does not exist anywhere in the universe because it CANNOT exist. Thus, is a God's defined qualities contradict themselves, then he CANNOT exist and you can know what as surely as you can know anything.

The Judeo-Christian god is ridiculously chock-full of self-contradictions and is the one god that we can say for certain does not exist.

[New Heliopolis]

Agnostic(noun):a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Origin: Prefix A (meaning non, as in asexual) plus the greeek word gnōtós, which means known. In essence the, word itself means "no knowledge".

exactly.

atheism: a claim about existence
agnosticism: a claim about knowledge of existence

So, to be atheist you basically have to take a leap of faith? (and I already finished the probability argument)

[New Heliopolis]

I don't know and I think it is impossible to ever really know (until you're dead, obviously).

It's very possible. You can KNOW that a defined god does not exist just like you can know that a square circle does not exist anywhere in the universe because it CANNOT exist. Thus, is a God's defined qualities contradict themselves, then he CANNOT exist and you can know what as surely as you can know anything.

The Judeo-Christian god is ridiculously chock-full of self-contradictions and is the one god that we can say for certain does not exist.

I disagree with that. Name these self-contradictions.

EDIT: Well, actually, it depends. Name them anyway, though.

[New Hampshyre]

So, to be atheist you basically have to take a leap of faith? (and I already finished the probability argument)

No. It doesn't require a leap of faith to know what square circles do not exist. In the same way you can KNOW that certain defined Gods do not exist if their defined characteristics contradict themselves.

[New Heliopolis]

So, to be atheist you basically have to take a leap of faith? (and I already finished the probability argument)

No. It doesn't require a leap of faith to know what square circles do not exist. In the same way you can KNOW that certain defined Gods do not exist if their defined characteristics contradict themselves.

But not for all defined gods. Not nearly all.

I'm not even beginning on gods not yet defined...

[New Hampshyre]

I disagree with that. Name these self-contradictions.

EDIT: Well, actually, it depends. Name them anyway, though.

1: Evil not come from something that is purely good, and so if all the universe came from God, so did the evil in the universe.

2: An omnipotent being cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient then he must know what is going to happen tomorrow. If he knows what is going to happen tomorrow then he cannot change what is going to happen tomorrow. An omnipotent God, by definition, can change anything. Therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

3: An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects.

4: An eternally perfect being cannot have created the universe. If a being is perfect then it is complete and is in need of nothing and never makes anything unnecessary. Therefore a perfect and thus complete being would have no need to make the universe, nor would it do anything unnecessary like make universes that serve no purpose.

There are a few more i could describe I think.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Do Christians believe that you have to repent in this life - ie can you repent in the afterlife?

Simple answer? Yes.

[Ahkas]

Stop living in your delusions and face Real Life. THERE IS NO GOD. But Earth was blue.

[New Hampshyre]

But not for all defined gods. Not nearly all.

I'm not even beginning on gods not yet defined...

That's right. So you can't logically be atheistic of ALL possible gods. I mean, someone could call ME a God, so obviously some "gods" are possible.

Or can I not rightly be called a God? If so then that is because you're assuming that All gods share some characteristics. If those characteristics include things like omnipotence, perfection, omniscience then it is possible to prove that all things that you would consider to be a god do not exist.

If Gods don't need to be omnipotent, perfect, ect, then anything/anyone can be called a god.

[Rambhutan]

Do Christians believe that you have to repent in this life - ie can you repent in the afterlife?

Simple answer? Yes.

Yes you have to repent in this life or yes you can repent in the afterlife?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I disagree with that. Name these self-contradictions.

EDIT: Well, actually, it depends. Name them anyway, though.

1: Evil not come from something that is purely good, and so if all the universe came from God, so did the evil in the universe.

2: An omnipotent being cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient then he must know what is going to happen tomorrow. If he knows what is going to happen tomorrow then he cannot change what is going to happen tomorrow. An omnipotent God, by definition, can change anything. Therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

3: An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects.

4: An eternally perfect being cannot have created the universe. If a being is perfect then it is complete and is in need of nothing and never makes anything unnecessary. Therefore a perfect and thus complete being would have no need to make the universe, nor would it do anything unnecessary like make universes that serve no purpose.

There are a few more i could describe I think.

1. God created men. He wishes for our lives to have purpose. Without Free Will, life is meaning less. Free Will is the cause of suffering and evil. Therefore God indirectly created evil.

2. This argument has the major hole of assuming that God works in a linear timeframe. In all likelihood if he does exist then he exists outside the constraints of time. Techincally He only knows what will happen tomorrow because tomorrow has already come and gone, and is still coming two weeks from now, simultaneously.

3 Really this is just an extension of 1. Anyway the parameters of the discussion do not require that God necessarily must be a pure good being.

4. Maybe God=Universe. Maybe he's not perfect. This argument hinges on a non-existent definition of God.

[Free Soviets]

So, to be atheist you basically have to take a leap of faith? (and I already finished the probability argument)

nope. to be an epistemically justified atheist you merely have to apply the same standards of justification that you do for literally everything else to god-claims.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Simple answer? Yes.

Yes you have to repent in this life or yes you can repent in the afterlife?

Sorry. You must repent in this life.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

But not for all defined gods. Not nearly all.

I'm not even beginning on gods not yet defined...

That's right. So you can't logically be atheistic of ALL possible gods. I mean, someone could call ME a God, so obviously some "gods" are possible.

Or can I not rightly be called a God? If so then that is because you're assuming that All gods share some characteristics. If those characteristics include things like omnipotence, perfection, omniscience then it is possible to prove that all things that you would consider to be a god do not exist.

If Gods don't need to be omnipotent, perfect, ect, then anything/anyone can be called a god.

That's kind of a lame argument. I have mulled this over in my head, and the only characteristic that I can figure that MUST be true of God is that He is the Creator. You didn't create the universe, or I hope not. If anyone else can help me with this definition it would be much appreciated, because mine is not sufficient to actually hold a debate with.

[Free Soviets]

the only characteristic that I can figure that MUST be true of God is that He is the Creator

that fails the greek god test

[The Alma Mater]

the only characteristic that I can figure that MUST be true of God is that He is the Creator

that fails the greek god test

As well the Norse, Hindu etc .

[The Murtunian Tribes]

that fails the greek god test

As well the Norse, Hindu etc .

Like I said, it wasn't a great definition. And actually it doesn't fail Hinduism. God (the universe) created himself, and said "Auuuuuuuuummmmmmmm", as in the meditative chant.

[Lauchlin]

That's right. So you can't logically be atheistic of ALL possible gods. I mean, someone could call ME a God, so obviously some "gods" are possible.

Or can I not rightly be called a God? If so then that is because you're assuming that All gods share some characteristics. If those characteristics include things like omnipotence, perfection, omniscience then it is possible to prove that all things that you would consider to be a god do not exist.

If Gods don't need to be omnipotent, perfect, ect, then anything/anyone can be called a god.

Congratulations on rendering the word "god" meaningless. Now, if you can just apply yourself to the rest of language, we can all go back to living in caves and grunting at each other once communication has become impossible.

[Ultamiya]

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.

The lack of verifiable evidence indicates that the answer is most likely no.

Do you have any evidence that he doesn't exist? Most likely, no. So your side can't be proven either.

I read this a few days ago and found it very interesting. Check it out. http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

[Lauchlin]

The lack of verifiable evidence indicates that the answer is most likely no.

Do you have any evidence that he doesn't exist? Most likely, no. So your side can't be proven either.l

I sometimes wonder if people actually believe themselves when they say things like this.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Do you have any evidence that he doesn't exist? Most likely, no. So your side can't be proven either.l

I sometimes wonder if people actually believe themselves when they say things like this.

Well you can stop. I do. Neither side can logically be proven or disproven. Any attempt to do so is luaghable, and even somewhat childish.

[Unchecked Expansion]

I read this a few days ago and found it very interesting. Check it out. http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I see they don't understand much about the universe, or biology. They just like to quote actual scientists without context

[Aggicificicerous]

I sometimes wonder if people actually believe themselves when they say things like this.

Well you can stop. I do. Neither side can logically be proven or disproven. Any attempt to do so is luaghable, and even somewhat childish.

Except the atheist "side" is not actually a side. We don't believe there is no god; we simply don't believe. We don't have to prove anything.

[Free Soviets]

I sometimes wonder if people actually believe themselves when they say things like this.

Well you can stop. I do. Neither side can logically be proven or disproven. Any attempt to do so is luaghable, and even somewhat childish.

neither side can prove or disprove the existence of the external world.