Is God real post your thoughts!

[Zierro]

The title of the thread is "Is God real post your thoughts!", not "Why should I follow your religion?".

 

 

 

The title of this forum is "Off-Topic".

 

 

 

Really??? :shock:

 

 

 

Yeah, just thought I'd let ya know that trailing off is common around here and allows for greater discussion. Especially in these really big threads.

[Lenticular_J]

I really want the 2000th post on here, haaa. I might stay up all night waiting for it. Or perhaps me and you could just find something to debate about until then, eh Zier?

[tryto]

Sly: Atheists are not making the positive claim that God exists. They are making a negative claim that he does not. Theists are making the positive claim here, so they have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence, is nearly evidence of absence.

 

I just wanted to say: We're both making a claim. If, for example, I tried to prove that the McDonald's company does not exist, would you not demand I make the burden of proof? You could theoretically go and find it - you know it exists. I would be saying it does not. McD-nostics would not have an opinion either way.

 

 

 

This public service announcement (The View from the Other Side) is brought to you by PBS.

 

 

 

 

 

No, not at all. Read up on the philosophical Burden of Proof. If I said that Mcdonalds did exist, I have the burden of proof, as I am making a POSITIVE claim. You are making a negative claim and do not have the burden of proof.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Oops. Read my lower post.

[Zierro]

I really want the 2000th post on here, haaa. I might stay up all night waiting for it. Or perhaps me and you could just find something to debate about until then, eh Zier?

 

 

 

Okay, let's talk about... hell. If God does exist, why would he send any one of his creations into eternal damnation?

[tryto]

Sly: Atheists are not making the positive claim that God exists. They are making a negative claim that he does not. Theists are making the positive claim here, so they have the burden of proof. Absence of evidence, is nearly evidence of absence.

 

I just wanted to say: We're both making a claim. If, for example, I tried to prove that the McDonald's company does not exist, would you not demand I make the burden of proof? You could theoretically go and find it - you know it exists. I would be saying it does not. McD-nostics would not have an opinion either way.

 

 

 

This public service announcement (The View from the Other Side) is brought to you by PBS.

 

 

 

 

 

No, not at all. Read up on the philosophical Burden of Proof. If I said that Mcdonalds did exist, I have the burden of proof, as I am making a POSITIVE claim. You are making a negative claim and do not have the burden of proof.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

 

 

If I said that there was a dragon hiding under my bed, would you not ask for some sort of proof or to see this dragon for yourself? I merely ask the same thing of religion. If, in response to your ask for proof, I gave you a book that I wrote about it, would you not argue that that proof is insufficient? It is the same with the Bible.

[Lenticular_J]

No, not at all. Read up on the philosophical Burden of Proof. If I said that Mcdonalds did exist, I have the burden of proof, as I am making a POSITIVE claim. You are making a negative claim and do not have the burden of proof.

 

I know a little about that, but I don't think it's logical. I think it's silly.

 

 

 

Okay, let's talk about... hell. If God does exist, why would he send any one of his creations into eternal damnation?

 

I never got that, either. I remember, I'd always believed that Earth was Hell. But, I don't any longer. Just seems too ... I dunno.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I understand all that logic, but I really just think it should go both ways. Whether trying to prove something doesn't exist, that I believe does, or vice versa.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oh yeah. Forgot, 2000th post isn't hundredth page. This is. Waaahaha. My dream is realized. I'd like to thank my mom. And, oh the irony. I'd like to thank God.

 

 

 

Heh.

[tryto]

"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."

 

 

 

You simply cannot have an argument on these kinds of topics without the burden of proof. Zero proof of something existing can never fully disprove ANYTHING.

 

 

 

If you say that there is a Macdonalds that sells invisible hamburgers , there is no way that I can disprove that, ever. I can go to every Macdonalds worldwide, and I can never prove your claim false. I can prove it correct, but I can never prove it incorrect.

[Sly_Wizard]

I really want the 2000th post on here, haaa. I might stay up all night waiting for it. Or perhaps me and you could just find something to debate about until then, eh Zier?

 

 

 

Okay, let's talk about... hell. If God does exist, why would he send any one of his creations into eternal damnation?

 

 

 

There's no such thing?

[Lenticular_J]

[A nifty post]

 

I agree.

 

 

 

Also: Happy one hundredth page of debate over the most and least worthy of all subjects. :

[Zierro]

You simply cannot have an argument on these kinds of topics without the burden of proof. Zero proof of something existing can never fully disprove ANYTHING.

 

 

 

If you say that there is a Macdonalds that sells invisible hamburgers , there is no way that I can disprove that, ever. I can go to every Macdonalds worldwide, and I can never prove your claim false. I can prove it correct, but I can never prove it incorrect.

 

 

 

(Playing devil's advocate here.)

 

 

 

That's exactly it. We can never prove it incorrect, so technically there is no proof that God doesn't exist, either. I've always looked at burden of proof as a two-way street.

 

 

 

There's no such thing?

 

 

 

You don't believe in hell? Doesn't that contradict your own beliefs?

[tryto]

You simply cannot have an argument on these kinds of topics without the burden of proof. Zero proof of something existing can never fully disprove ANYTHING.

 

 

 

If you say that there is a Macdonalds that sells invisible hamburgers , there is no way that I can disprove that, ever. I can go to every Macdonalds worldwide, and I can never prove your claim false. I can prove it correct, but I can never prove it incorrect.

 

 

 

(Playing devil's advocate here.)

 

 

 

That's exactly it. We can never prove it incorrect, so technically there is no proof that God doesn't exist, either. I've always looked at burden of proof as a two-way street.

 

 

 

There's no such thing?

 

 

 

You don't believe in hell? Doesn't that contradict your own beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

You are correct. We can never fully disprove God; he is, by definition, not falsifiable, which is an important scientific concept. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability )

 

However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

While not completely true, it definitely does not help to PROVE God.

 

There just plain isn't any evidence to support the existence of a God. In a debate, atheists can put up proofs against God until they're blue in the face, but because he isn't falsifiable, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. And that is why the burden of proof exists. Without it, it's a case of one group saying "NUH-UH" over and over again.

[BlueLancer]

 

There's no such thing?

 

 

 

You don't believe in hell? Doesn't that contradict your own beliefs?

 

 

 

Sly's right on that one, theologically the Bible says absolutely nothing about "eternal damnation". The word which is translated into the English word 'hell' in original scripture is the hebrew word "gehenna", described in the New Testament as a "place where evil will be destroyed". It was literally a burning garbage dump in Jerusalem.

 

 

 

Look into the etymology:

 

"Gehenna" comes from Ge Hinnom which is literally Valley of Hinnom."

 

 

 

There's no mention of it being some kind of divine punishment, it's described as an actual valley in Jerusalem countless times during the Bible. Read 2 Chronicles 28:3, Joshua 18:16,Nehemiah 11:30:

 

 

 

And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel

 

 

 

3 Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the afire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel.

 

 

 

Zanoa, Odollam, and in their villages, at Lachis and its dependencies, and at Azeca and the villages thereof. And they dwelt from Bersabee unto the valley of Hinnom

 

 

 

The idea of using the Valley of Hinnom as a 'spiritual hell' is more or less a scare tactic, or dare I say, complete fabrication because it has no truthful basis in the Bible.

[Zierro]

The idea of using the Valley of Hinnom as a 'spiritual hell' is more or less a scare tactic, or dare I say, complete fabrication because it has no truthful basis in the Bible.

 

 

 

Ahh, that's much more sensible than a god punishing his own creations. I wonder why it's so embedded into modern Christianity though. But anyways, thanks. :

[Flyingjj]

Wow, that was a busy day I missed. Not actually going to add to any arguments tonight, too much to do.

 

 

 

But Sly, man you're digging a big hole for our religion here. Some of your arguments don't make sense to me, and I agree with you. I don't currently have the time or patience to pull us out of this hole. But some of the points you bring up aren't completely pointless. I'm sorry to sound so mean, but I was shaking my head as I read the last five pages. Good job irritating the atheists while I was gone though. :P (Just kidding, take it easy guys...)

 

 

 

Both sides need to put a leash on their tone, my last post included, I let a bit of frustration and hurt into that one. Tone is very important and sometimes leads others to make assumptions about things you may not necessarily believe. My particular beef is with James, but everyone could take the harshness down a step, even if you do believe that the other person is completely unable to understand the point of what you just posted.

 

 

 

I know this is a few pages back, but James, I again request that you refrain from calling me delusional because I perceive reality differently than you. It does end up sounding like you are calling me something very close to stupid, even if you aren't. ;)

[Cup Lion]

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

 

 

 

Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be telling people that if they sin, they will burn in a garbage dump named the Valley of Hinnom.

[venomai]

I know this is a few pages back, but James, I again request that you refrain from calling me delusional because I perceive reality differently than you.

 

The schizophrenic perceives reality differently as well.

 

 

 

I do not wish to liken theism to a mental illness -- the term has such a negative undertone (hell, homosexuality was once labelled a mental illness) -- but belief in god (more specifically, god's role in our lives) certainly is a delusion. At the very least, it is as much of a delusion as the belief in ghosts, goblins and the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

 

It does end up sounding like you are calling me something very close to stupid, even if you aren't.

 

Delusion has little to do with intelligence. e.g. Terrence McKenna was an extremely intelligent man, but in his later years he fell victim to a set of very clear delusions (most likely associated with his frequent high-dose psychedelic use, see here).

 

 

 

(As an aside: Apologies for the repeated drug references.)

[Flyingjj]

I know this is a few pages back, but James, I again request that you refrain from calling me delusional because I perceive reality differently than you.

 

The schizophrenic perceives reality differently as well.

 

 

 

I do not wish to liken theism to a mental illness -- the term has such a negative undertone (hell, homosexuality was once labelled a mental illness) -- but belief in god (more specifically, god's role in our lives) certainly is a delusion. At the very least, it is as much of a delusion as the belief in ghosts, goblins and the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

There is debate among psychologists about schizophrenia and other such "disorders" being labeled as such. I say again, because they see reality differently, we label that as abnormal and a disease. You ever think that maybe we're all the crazy ones and the schizophrenics are the only ones who see the world for what it truly is? Us trying to "help" them might only be us supressing that which we cannot, or do not wish to, see.

 

 

 

The real problem I have with the belief of theism as a delusion is when people state such a thing as a fact, something that is "certain." I don't care whether you believe that yourself, but don't state something as fact when it isn't. Running the risk of having this thrown right back in my face, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that we are delusional, as we claim we aren't and you do, therefore, you must prove that our delusion truly exists.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You ever think that maybe we're all the crazy ones and the schizophrenics are the only ones who see the world for what it truly is? Us trying to "help" them might only be us supressing that which we cannot, or do not wish to, see.

 

 

 

The real problem I have with the belief of theism as a delusion is when people state such a thing as a fact, something that is "certain." I don't care whether you believe that yourself, but don't state something as fact when it isn't. Running the risk of having this thrown right back in my face, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that we are delusional, as we claim we aren't and you do, therefore, you must prove that our delusion truly exists.

 

If by the bolded part you mean the undeniable fact that the Earth is indeed flat then yes, Christians can firmly say they see the world as it truly is.

 

 

 

The problem with the second paragraph is this: Few atheists will ever call religion a mental illness. Such persecution is in the minds of only religious believers themselves.

 

 

 

What the atheist merely asks is this: If you make the assertion that God exists, and you expect me to drop my belief that there is no God(s), all I ask for is some sort of evidence to go with your point to prove the validity of your argument. It's the fundamental basic structure to an argument.

 

 

 

Over half the world simply being religious doesn't prove God's existence. "Voices" I cannot personally verify doesn't either. Claiming that God is immaterial and thus cannot be proved doesn't prove His existence.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I can turn your "evidence for a negative assertion" format on its head. Christians are monotheistic. Sly, for some strange reason, decided to cite Hindus as having experienced God's voice. Lenticular also decided to cite Buddhism. There is a problem with this: Buddha is not comparable to the Christian God (just talk to any Buddhist), and Hindus believe in many Gods, not just the One.

 

 

 

One of the main doctrines of the Bible is this: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". Therefore, if an Atheist is required in the context of this debate to disprove the existence of God, surely the same obligation has to be made to the Christian, who believes possibly all but one of the many deities in Hinduism are false deities, to disprove the existence of those other deities.

 

 

 

When Sly actually starts doing that, maybe the Atheists here will actually start too.

[Saru Inc]

Does anyone else not notice this?

 

 

 

Everything falls on the Theists, and not the Atheists, isn't it funny how it all works out for Atheists.

 

 

 

1) Cut the burden of proof [cabbage], it's quite aggravating.

 

 

 

2) READ the posts people write on both sides, and to all Atheists, if a Christian beats your argument give up, you got beat, don't go around insulting them, that's just low.

 

 

 

3) Why does anyone even debate religion, I go back to my link I've posted billions of times.

 

 

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp

 

 

 

Read the page, it will essentially end the debate.

 

 

 

4) To that list of contradictions, as stated earlier, is a fallacy. Taken out of contexts eliminates any validity of the verse with the meaning as you're trying to put it. The burden of proof lies on the Atheists who really say it's a contradiction. Its like when Jesus told people to not go tee-toling (sp?) but drink some red wine, for it's good for your stomach, now surely sometime somewhere, an Atheist said "Hey, Jesus supports drunkeness!" Of course not, he was advising. Also, it's important for Atheists AND Christians alike to know the purpose of the verse, as in when Jesus told the guy he couldn't go to heaven if he was rich, someone used that to say God supported Socialism. Of course God does not, the problem was, if you took the verse in Context, the guy was extremely materialistic (much like people here) and could not think about anything else but his money. God wanted him to moderate the money, donate to charity, and tithe. But not give it all away.

 

 

 

 

 

5) Sly, and any other Christians, give up, there's no point in arguing with people like this.

[BlueLancer]

Does anyone else not notice this?

 

 

 

Everything falls on the Theists, and not the Atheists, isn't it funny how it all works out for Atheists.

 

 

 

1) Cut the burden of proof [cabbage], it's quite aggravating.

 

 

 

 

If you ever get involved with a court of law, you'll notice it applies in every situation where assumptions are made about a situation. You can't just state something or act out on 'belief', you must have something concrete to support your statement in order for it to be valid.

 

 

 

Likewise in court, when someone is being accused of murder or any other crime, the burden of proof isn't on the defendant. It's on the person making the statement that something happened. For courtesy's sake let's say the following doesn't apply to religious debate, but with anything else in life, unless no proof is shown, the law says you are "innocent until proven guilty".

 

 

 

A God doesn't simply start existing because a person "believes" it, just like a person isn't convicted of murder because you "believe" he is guilty.

 

 

 

Just to put some perspective so you can understand why some parties of the discussion often get frustrated by logical inconsistensies.

[Saru Inc]

Well, naturally, it's just funny how the Atheists do not accept the Theist's proof, but call the Theists ignorant when we don't accept the Atheists proof.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well, naturally, it's just funny how the Atheists do not accept the Theist's proof, but call the Theists ignorant when we don't accept the Atheists proof.

 

Where is the Atheists' proof you speak of? I think the point most are making here is that we cannot prove nor disprove God's existence because people like you claim he's immaterial and thus cannot have any proof.

 

 

 

As you said, READ the posts people write on both sides.

[BlueLancer]

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

 

 

 

Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be telling people that if they sin, they will burn in a garbage dump named the Valley of Hinnom.

 

 

 

The continuously burning garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna (lit. hell) was used to burn criminals, usurpers, carcasses of dead animals, etc... It was an actual physical place in Jerusalem where the worst of the worst would be disposed. At no point do Jesus or the Bible mention anything about your "soul" ending up in there.

 

 

 

Book of Revelations and Hebrews 10:27 also mention 'raging fire' or 'lake of fire' in relation to 'gehenna'.

[Saru Inc]

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

 

 

 

Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

 

I highly doubt Jesus would be telling people that if they sin, they will burn in a garbage dump named the Valley of Hinnom.

 

 

 

 

 

Valley of Hinnom sounds like a land fill, actually.

 

 

 

Also GW, you're quite correct, that is what people say. However, I do not agree. Any Christian cannot say god isn't material. Simply because Jesus IS God and he came down to Earth. And also, there are Atheists here who are flat out saying God doesn't exist.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Now I has the 2000th post. Not that I've contributed much to this thread. :P

 

 

 

Saru, then those Atheists are hypocrites. The whole point Atheism is that giving a conclusion (that God exists) without facts, or giving a conclusion and then making implicit references to the world around us is a cack-handed way of justifying something, and runs counter to the scientific method.

 

 

 

Established, verifiable facts should be used to make a conclusion in that order. That's the problem I personally have with religion. The conclusion that God exists has been made with no evidence, and there's been no evidence since the Bible publication that I would define as evidence. That's not denial, that's logic.

 

 

 

That and the other problem: the scientific method only works with objectivity. Much of the reasoning given for the existence of God over the past few pages has been purely subjective.