Do Gods Exist? Can You Prove Gods Exist? Do They Even Have To Exist?

[Data]

Definitions

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being; (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate; an adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god; the gallery in a theater.

Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods.

Veneration: great respect; reverence:

Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality; continued survival; a way of living; any of a person's supposed current, future, or past lives on this earth; all that exists; a being or entity.

In essence a god is anything or anyone who is venerated. A mortal man, an object, a fictional or mythological character, real or imagined, a concept like luck. Good or bad. To exist as a god could involve any of a number of specific applications. To exist literally, metaphorically, figuratively, as a fictional, metaphysical or mythological being, object or concept. In what specific sense any alleged god may exist may depend upon such context.

Questions for debate: Do gods exist? Can you prove they exist and do they even have to exist?

[Data]

You don't get to tell me what it is, or isn't.

But you can tell me.

You are not the arbiter.

But you are.

I'm sure I told you before.

You can't tell me that you told me before. You're not the arbiter of what you've told me. I don't expect you to tell me what you've told me. I expect you to not expect me to tell me what you haven't told me, I expect, so don't tell me what to tell you you've told me.

The kind of god you are talking about is what is known on the forum as 'not relevant to the topic'.

I'll be the arbiter of that. I make a thread, you respond. You make a thread, I respond. Or not. Understand?

[POI]

I'm trying to understand EXACTLY what you mean by rules and nothing.

You already did, a few responses back, but we are not yet moving forward:

"It seemed that you were implying that since God didn't have a place to occupy or anything to rule over it was impossible for him to have existed under those circumstances. It may have been you were implying it wasn't logical for him to rule over or exist in nothing"

************************************************

And I already defined 'nothing'. ---> Absence of anything at all. This includes the natural, the supernatural, other, or anything.

It is you who are now engaging in spin. You also already agreed it makes no sense. And not like it makes no sense in that you have not studied enough, but instead logically.

Use your words wisely, dude. What makes no sense? Ruling over nothing in a literal sense makes no sense, yes. Jehovah existed before anything. There was nothing except Jehovah prior to creation. Yes. What is nothing? Jehovah didn't "have" to create anything. He wasn't wandering around in nothing wondering where he could hang his hat.

I did use my words wisely. You said "It's hard for me to understand. It doesn't make sense." This is because concepts, which defy logic, do not logically make sense. I guess this is why a believer, such as yourself, will then instead resort to faith or magic.

All you have is a claim --> (the Bible).

All I have is an opinion. All anyone has is an opinion.

Nah. Some things are opinion, sure. But other times, I operate under logic, and/or evidence-based practices. Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

You refused my offer to explain the Bible to you. You never acknowledged my detailed interpretation of the Bible in the link I provided. If the Bible is the claim, you aren't taking a very scientific approach to debating the claim. "Oh, you read about God in some book." "And you read about science in some book."

This topic is addressing what you already acknowledged; that at one point "God created".

maybe you will understand, using a differing explanation. Is it logical to ponder what is north of the north pole or what is colder than absolute zero? NO.

Okay.

Since I see no push-back here, I guess this means we agree. So what if I were to instead argue that these two propositions are still possible? Aside from faith and/or magic, how could I still coherently argue 1) things exists north of the north pole and 2) things can be colder than absolute zero?

Nowhere you could comprehend. No spiritual or physical place. Just God.

Looks like a "faith" or "magic" answer. I can apply such a response to any claim which defies logic

[Data]

[POI]

[Data]

[POI]

[Data]

Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Oh, come on now. Most of your distractions are at least somewhat entertaining. No science. No Theology. No Philosophy. No Religion. Only facts. The Bible is your only source. Can you deduce an answer to that question from the Bible?

So in 50,000 years from now, we may discover that the earth is a flat/round disk?

I wouldn't be surprised. The answer is yes. Because what we "discover" isn't infallible.

Should we, or should we not, abide by logic?

Hey, what would I do without it? Logic is just what we think, i.e. believe. "Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic. Broadly speaking, a logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. In other words, a logical truth is a statement which is not only true, but one which is true under all interpretations of its logical components (other than its logical constants)." (Wikipedia)

And your avoidance in answering here, is why I still have to bring it forth. Can we logically go north of the north pole or below absolute zero? I say no. What say you?

It doesn't have anything to do with anything we are talking about. You're trying to impose your answer upon me by - uh, what are the atheist mottos, I mean, logical fallacies? Straw man? False Dilemma? Hasty Generalization? What's the one I'm thinking of? False analogy. I just can't resist, when you do that, asking you what your response would be to any possible answers I would give. So, what if the answer is no? What if the answer is yes? What if the answer is we don't know? What about, it doesn't matter. At all? Could it be colder than we previously thought? Could it (Kelvin) be not as cold? Does the earth wobble? Does it Weeble? Does it fall down? Silliness.

Why do you keep asking questions like that to ascertain the answers we've already argued that we've argued before? BECAUSE YOU WON'T LOOK AT THE FACTS!

LOL! You stated "Nowhere you could comprehend". This means you are included.

Included in what? I'm a real nowhere man?! Sitting in my nowhere land? THAT! I could dig.

2nd attempt:

Couldn't I just give this lame response about ANY ILLOGICAL CLAIM?

Multiple choice: A) No. B) Yes. C) Only if you're an atheist. D) If you reside north of the South Pole. E) All of the above. F) Green G) None of the above. H) Sometimes J. Edger Hoover liked to dress in women's clothing and walk up and down 5th street.

[POI]

Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Oh, come on now. Most of your distractions are at least somewhat entertaining. No science. No Theology. No Philosophy. No Religion. Only facts. The Bible is your only source. Can you deduce an answer to that question from the Bible?

?????? We are speaking about logic. You asked for evidence for my prior statement that "apologists will argue god cannot do anything which is logically impossible." Does God defy logic? If so, evidence please?

So in 50,000 years from now, we may discover that the earth is a flat/round disk?

I wouldn't be surprised. The answer is yes. Because what we "discover" isn't infallible.

I don't believe you. This smells like an apologetic game. Much like I pointed out before, where I informed you that 'we must all have faith.' This way, you can place us doubters on the same level playing field as you guys. 'We cannot really know anything." It's all faith! Please try a different game. I'm not buying it.

Should we, or should we not, abide by logic?

Hey, what would I do without it? Logic is just what we think, i.e. believe. "Logical truth is one of the most fundamental concepts in logic. Broadly speaking, a logical truth is a statement which is true regardless of the truth or falsity of its constituent propositions. In other words, a logical truth is a statement which is not only true, but one which is true under all interpretations of its logical components (other than its logical constants)." (Wikipedia)

It was a (yes/no) question. Should we, or should we not, abide by logic? Is the above a 'yes' answer? Seems funny you implore that I keep simple and direct. And yet, your answers come with a bunch of unnecessary-ness.

And your avoidance in answering here, is why I still have to bring it forth. Can we logically go north of the north pole or below absolute zero? I say no. What say you?

It doesn't have anything to do with anything we are talking about. You're trying to impose your answer upon me by - uh, what are the atheist mottos, I mean, logical fallacies? Straw man? False Dilemma? Hasty Generalization? What's the one I'm thinking of? False analogy. I just can't resist, when you do that, asking you what your response would be to any possible answers I would give. So, what if the answer is no? What if the answer is yes? What if the answer is we don't know? What about, it doesn't matter. At all? Could it be colder than we previously thought? Could it (Kelvin) be not as cold? Does the earth wobble? Does it Weeble? Does it fall down? Silliness.

More 'woo' and 'apologetics'. Not surprised. It has everything to do with what we are talking about. The (2) aforementioned logical impossibilities are just that. Impossible. This is exactly why you had to give the answer you gave (i.e.) "Nowhere you could comprehend". It is a convenient and lame catch-all answer. "God's ways are above our own. There, I win!". And yet, we do not even know if Jehovah exists at all. Maybe you can ask him for us?

LOL! You stated "Nowhere you could comprehend". This means you are included.

Included in what?

When you say, 'it was beyond your level of comprehension', this includes all. When a claim defies logic, you must then state something to the effect of "God's ways are higher than ours.". Couldn't I also say this about ANY illogical claim, about ANY claimed God(s)/other? The answer is yes. It's a lame and lazy cop out answer, backed by no evidence - just faith and/or magic.

[Data]

??????

The interrogation is actually starting to make debate look fun. I'll try a different approach.

Does God defy logic? If so, evidence please?

Yes.

Evidence.

Should we, or should we not, abide by logic?

Not.

[POI]

[Replying to Data in post #149]

In essence, your arguments are as follows:

1) "We cannot really know anything". We all use faith, as a believer or an unbeliever. It's a deliberate ploy to put skeptics and doubters on the very same playing field as believers. "We all have to ultimately put our trust into what we think we know"
2) "Gods ways are higher than ours". It's a convenient answer, when you have absolutely no evidence for your faith-based belief.

See how long you survive without your logic. Is that stop light really there? Really?