Is God real post your thoughts!

[Saru Inc]

Didn't I just say it was an opinion? Yes, I did.

 

You can't have the opinion that something is testable, really. You can think it is, but if there's no tests that prove it, it's not testable.

 

No, it's my opinion he can't be tested by YOUR standards.

[Zierro]

The logic for asserting anything should go: Premise, proof, conclusion. If there's no proof for the premise then you can dismiss it. You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist because that is the default position. The idea of god came after the default position of no god.

 

 

 

Well, I do have to say you put it into better terms than I've ever seen someone else say it before. But, I still don't agree with the way they word it - as an assertion.

 

 

 

Say Bob and Rob are working on a farm one day, on the opposite side of where the barn is so it is out of their field of view. Bob goes up to Rob and makes the positive assertion, "They painted the barn yellow." Rob argues back and says, "No they did not paint the barn yellow. There is no evidence so therefore they did not."

 

 

 

Of course Bob has no evidence that they did paint it yellow, but I don't see how his assertion and lack of evidence is any different than Rob's. For all he knows, they could have painted it yellow. Rob doesn't know whether they did or not, so if you ask me the default position should be indifference - not biased towards either side, until he actually sees the barn for himself.

[Lateralus]

The logic for asserting anything should go: Premise, proof, conclusion. If there's no proof for the premise then you can dismiss it. You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist because that is the default position. The idea of god came after the default position of no god.

 

 

 

Well, I do have to say you put it into better terms than I've ever seen someone else say it before. But, I still don't agree with the way they word it - as an assertion.

 

 

 

Say Bob and Rob are working on a farm one day, on the opposite side of where the barn is. Bob goes up to Rob and makes the positive assertion, "They painted the barn yellow." Rob argues back and says, "No they did not paint the barn yellow. There is no evidence so therefore they did not."

 

 

 

Of course Bob has no evidence that they did paint it yellow, but I don't see how his assertion and lack of evidence is any different than Rob's. For all he knows, they could have painted it yellow. Rob doesn't know whether they did or not, so if you ask me the default position should be indifference - not biased towards either side.

 

 

 

In this example you can turn to the proof though, and the onus of proof is on Bob, not the skeptical Rob. If the barn was invisible or inaccessible, or previous claims that the barn was yellow had been sensibly dismissed, then Rob could quite easily suggest that the barn was not yellow (EDIT) or more importantly that Bob could not know anything about the barn.

[Saru Inc]

So...

 

 

 

"God doesn't exist" is a justifiable statement because of the fact that there is no evidence for him.

 

 

 

But...

 

 

 

"God does exist" isn't a justifiable statement because of the fact that there is no evidence against him?

 

 

 

Honestly, am I the only one in the world who sees this as a two-way street? :|

 

 

 

The logic for asserting anything should go: Premise, proof, conclusion. If there's no proof for the premise then you can dismiss it. You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist because that is the default position. The idea of god came after the default position of no god.

 

 

 

That in itself is an opinion. In the Christian form of view, there was the view of God, then the view of no God. God is real is the default position.

[Lateralus]

That in itself is an opinion. In the Christian form of view, there was the view of God, then the view of no God. God is real is the default position.

 

 

 

It's not an opinion. No knowledge always comes before knowledge. You didn't believe in the existence of a deity when you were born.

[Zierro]

In this example you can turn to the proof though, and the onus of proof is on Bob, not the skeptical Rob. If the barn was invisible or inaccessible, or previous claims that the barn was yellow had been sensibly dismissed, then Rob could quite easily suggest that the barn was not yellow.

 

 

 

By "suggest" do you mean "to believe" or "to assert"? I have no problem with anyone saying they believe something because it's on a personal level, but when they go as far as asserting it, it makes it sound as if it is a universal fact which I believe should be complemented with evidence.

[Saru Inc]

That in itself is an opinion. In the Christian form of view, there was the view of God, then the view of no God. God is real is the default position.

 

 

 

It's not an opinion. No knowledge always comes before knowledge. You didn't believe in the existence of a deity when you were born.

 

 

 

How do you know?

[Lateralus]

In this example you can turn to the proof though, and the onus of proof is on Bob, not the skeptical Rob. If the barn was invisible or inaccessible, or previous claims that the barn was yellow had been sensibly dismissed, then Rob could quite easily suggest that the barn was not yellow.

 

 

 

By "suggest" do you mean "to believe" or "to assert"? I have no problem with anyone saying they believe something because it's on a personal level, but when they go as far as asserting it, it makes it sound as if it is a universal fact which I believe should be complemented with evidence.

 

 

 

He couldn't say 100% that the barn wasn't yellow, but at the very least he could ask for proof. If Bob can't prove it, then there's no reason to listen to what he has to say. So in reality what's actually being rejected is Bob's idea that the barn is yellow, not the 'yellowness' of the barn. I'm rejecting the idea of the existence of a god because there's never been a satisfactory proof for it. Obviously you can't say for certain that there is no god but Occam's Razor means I don't need him.

[Lateralus]

That in itself is an opinion. In the Christian form of view, there was the view of God, then the view of no God. God is real is the default position.

 

 

 

It's not an opinion. No knowledge always comes before knowledge. You didn't believe in the existence of a deity when you were born.

 

 

 

How do you know?

 

 

 

Because you don't know anything when you're born. Not knowing is the default position. One day someone put the idea in your head that the Christian God was the master of the universe. You weren't born with that idea.

[Saru Inc]

Oh, well then yea, I agree with you there. I meant more of a beginning of the world thing.

[Shinjula]

God is testable, andcan be with empiracle evidence, but it's really hard to explain, and I don't think I even fully understand it.

 

What?

 

 

 

About the mathematics, those things fitting exactly together. Let's not forget humans came up with the whole mathematics, numbers 1-9, that genious who came up with the 0, etc.

 

 

 

Well thats very arguable, man may have learnt to conceptualise two cows, two sheep and two apples, and the extrapolate from that the concept of two, but the results in maths, those things which are provable are not crated by man, they are fixed, the ratio between the radius and circumference of a circle IS twice the ratio between the radius and the area of a circle, man did not create that, it was the case before man existed. So to say man came up with mathematics is inaccurate at best.

 

 

 

Still I suppose this'll get ignored since we seem to be having the stupid debate about proof at the moment.

 

 

 

It should be clear to any fool that there is no proof for god at the moment, neither is there proof for a lack of god either, both sides here seem to be arguing that the burden of proof is for the other side to do but to me thats just stupid, we ALL would find proof of the existence/non-existence of god a fantastic thing, so we should all be working towards finding out if god exists, the burden of proof is on all intelligent beings which ever side there support, so quit argueing about it and get on with solving the problem instead of arguing who's job it is.

[Lenticular_J]

Because you don't know anything when you're born. Not knowing is the default position. One day someone put the idea in your head that the Christian God was the master of the universe. You weren't born with that idea.

 

(Not trying to start an argument here, legitimately curious)

 

 

 

But don't fetuses have brain behavior around seven months? Doesn't that imply thought and probably knowledge? I mean, it'll be in a different sense than what we consider knowledge as adults or fourteen-year-olds, but maybe those unborn little fetuses know the secrets to the universe.

 

 

 

I was really only guessing at the brain behavior. I don't know much but I know I love yooooouuuu about fetuses.

[Lateralus]

Because you don't know anything when you're born. Not knowing is the default position. One day someone put the idea in your head that the Christian God was the master of the universe. You weren't born with that idea.

 

(Not trying to start an argument here, legitimately curious)

 

 

 

But don't fetuses have brain behavior around seven months? Doesn't that imply thought and probably knowledge? I mean, it'll be in a different sense than what we consider knowledge as adults or fourteen-year-olds, but maybe those unborn little fetuses know the secrets to the universe.

 

 

 

I was really only guessing at the brain behavior. I don't know much but I know I love yooooouuuu about fetuses.

 

 

 

It might 'know' how to be comfortable or something like that. It will 'know' how to move its body, but it doesn't have any idea about the outside world and as such can't reason or ponder anything about it. Brain behavior or not, it will still have no idea about god.

[warri0r45]

God is testable, andcan be with empiracle evidence, but it's really hard to explain, and I don't think I even fully understand it.

 

 

 

Testing god is amenable to making up a supernatural explanation for a natural occurrence and claiming it has been tested when the natural occurrence comes true. For example, you could hypothesise that Thor is responsible for thunder and then whenever you see thunder, you could claim that the hypothesis has been supported. Yet, you're still left with the problem that, by definition, you can't actually test the abilities of Thor to see if he actually can make thunder; he's not going to come down from the heavens and show us all his mechanism for doing so.

 

 

 

For all we know, thunder could be due to some natural mechanism, and in many cases natural explanations have been confirmed after years of supernatural superstitions like Thor. The secnario I've just explained leaves me with all the explanatory power I want (appeal to the supernatural while having no onus to prove the power of the supernatural agent) but it has no meaning or value in the real world at all because it's only limited by my imagination.

[The Dark Lord]

God is testable, andcan be with empiracle evidence, but it's really hard to explain, and I don't think I even fully understand it.

 

 

 

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

 

 

 

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

 

 

Just throwing that out there for you guys trying to prove Yahweh/Jehovah exists. They're your bloody rules, so don't freak out.

[Shinjula]

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

 

 

 

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

 

 

Just throwing that out there for you guys trying to prove Yahweh/Jehovah exists. They're your bloody rules, so don't freak out.

 

 

 

Two very good reasons NOT to worship that god.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

 

 

 

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

 

 

Just throwing that out there for you guys trying to prove Yahweh/Jehovah exists. They're your bloody rules, so don't freak out.

 

I know picking out quotes from holy books against religion is pedantic but how many of these are there?

 

 

 

If a piece of scientific research was published with this many contradictions and flaws it would be ridiculed. Yet some on this thread seem to believe these books are the indisputable truth...

[Saru Inc]

God is testable, andcan be with empiracle evidence, but it's really hard to explain, and I don't think I even fully understand it.

 

 

 

Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.

 

 

 

Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

 

 

Just throwing that out there for you guys trying to prove Yahweh/Jehovah exists. They're your bloody rules, so don't freak out.

 

 

 

 

 

That means nothing. Every piece was out of context, so how do I know it's valid?

 

 

 

Judges 6:34-42 (New International Version)

 

 

 

 

 

34 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Gideon, and he blew a trumpet, summoning the Abiezrites to follow him. 35 He sent messengers throughout Manasseh, calling them to arms, and also into Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali, so that they too went up to meet them.

 

 

 

36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dewa bowlful of water.

 

 

 

39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.

 

 

 

 

 

God let him test it.

 

 

 

[hide=Deut.]be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

 

 

 

13 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. 17 Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. 18 Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight, so that it may go well with you and you may go in and take over the good land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers, 19 thrusting out all your enemies before you, as the LORD said.

 

 

 

 

 

Now, as you put all the surrounding verses iun you cansee what they meant. God didn't mean don't est him, he means don't nag him. As in, don't see how far you can go, before you can get into trouble. Thats what they were talking about.[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=Matthew]The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

 

 

 

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"

 

 

 

5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:

 

" 'He will command his angels concerning you,

 

and they will lift you up in their hands,

 

so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"

 

 

 

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"

 

 

 

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

 

 

 

10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"

 

 

 

11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

 

 

 

Once again, this time, Jesus was talking to Satan. He was saying don't push me.[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You fail to disprove my point.

[Shinjula]

Mind you, those passages do show that that sort of god is a very suckky one, I'm all for omnibenevolent gods, but jealous gods are just not worthy of worship by any intelligent conscious being.

 

 

 

Christian God = fail

[Saru Inc]

Huh?

 

 

 

Sure.

 

 

 

How do they show that?

[Shinjula]

>>>15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God

 

 

 

...jealous god, ok?

[tryto]

Just hopping in:

 

 

 

Matthew 17:20.

 

 

 

20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."[a]

 

 

 

Do you have so little faith? Why does everyone have so little faith and no one can move a mountain close to my house so I can ski? I'll believe in God if and when you move a mountain to my front door.

[Saru Inc]

It's an idea dude, he's saying that with him, everything is possible. I mean, I bet Jesus could move a mountain, but us, I don't think so. BUt he is saying if we have faith, nothing will stand in our way.

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above above poster, where is that verse from?

 

 

 

And also, usually when it says he's a jealous God, it says so because he loves us, and he doesn't want to let us go.

[Perakp]

Believe it or not, everything is not possible.

 

Here's a good example (from another topic)

 

I try desperately to create a triangle with two obtuse angles.

 

 

 

I know, you probably think me an idiot. But I think it's possible. So I keep trying. After all, those who broke the possibility barriers of the world were some of the best benefactors, eh?

 

 

:mrgreen:

 

Thinking that everything is possible, even if only to a supernatural force, I believe, is immensely dangerous to both individuals and the community.

[D Jay99]

It's an idea dude, he's saying that with him, everything is possible. I mean, I bet Jesus could move a mountain, but us, I don't think so. BUt he is saying if we have faith, nothing will stand in our way.

 

 

 

 

 

And to the above above poster, where is that verse from?

 

 

 

And also, usually when it says he's a jealous God, it says so because he loves us, and he doesn't want to let us go.

 

So what exactly would he be jealous of?

 

 

 

The people in poor countries usually pray a lot. They have loads and loads of faith, yet most live their life in miserable circumstances. Everything is possible, of course. But only if you're lucky. That's nothing compared to the people who prayed and had faith but lived their whole life in misery.

 

 

 

The only ones who can do something about the poor people are the rich countries, but those prefer to keep their money for themselves. Understandable, I wouldn't give money to people I don't know if that means I'll have less money to buy stuff like a second car and an enormous flatscreen tv.