Do you believe in God?

[atheist buddy]

Hi, this is just a basic poll. I'd just like to get the sense of how many theists and atheists there are on this forum.

Feel free to add comments if you like, but primarily please answer the poll question.

Thanks
AB

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to dianaiad]

The way I see it, "self" requires "other" and vice versa. God having a "self" would be contingent on the existence of something other than God.

And a contingient God isn't God at all.

[dianaiad]

Question: why must God not be self aware?

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

Now that, friends and neighbors, is what we call a 'positive claim."

Prove it.

Dang! I cannot prove God doesn't exist. Therefore God exists.

You won the argument. Oh well.

Nice try. No joy, though: I'm not claiming that an inability to prove that God does not exist proves that one does.

You, however, made a very specific, very positive claim that God does not. My challenge that you prove it relates to that claim, and that claim only.

If you cannot prove that God does not exist, you cannot use the 'fact' that God does not exist as proof that, oh, Mary was not a virgin or that Jesus is not the Son of God.

...........though I do believe that this bit of logical begging of the question has been addressed in this thread quite well, and not by me.

By the way.

I cannot prove that Humpty Dumpty doesn't exist. Therefore Humpty Dumpty exists.

I'm calling you on the strawman here.

There has been no claim here that an inability to prove that God does not exist proves that one does. I haven't alluded to that possibility. Indeed, I've written quite often that an inability to prove that God is does not mean that He is not, and an inability to prove that He is not does not mean that He is.

You have come up with this one just to avoid the problem you just landed yourself into.

<snip a few paragraphs of you stretching this particular fallacy out a lot farther than it can be stretched...>

Here's the thing, atheist buddy. You made a very clear, positive claim that God does not exist. You use His non-existence as support for your position that Mary was not a virgin.

That's begging the question, and it's a very positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You made it. You prove it.

Simple.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

The way I see it, "self" requires "other" and vice versa. God having a "self" would be contingent on the existence of something other than God.

And a contingient God isn't God at all.

Explain that one to me, please?

Why must a self aware deity be contingent upon something (or someone) else?

And why would a deity with a 'history', or one that is, as you say, 'contingent,' not be a deity?

........and please remember that I'm a Mormon. The idea of a 'contingent' God doesn't bother me a bit.

[atheist buddy]

Question: why must God not be self aware?

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

Now that, friends and neighbors, is what we call a 'positive claim."

Prove it.

Dang! I cannot prove God doesn't exist. Therefore God exists.

You won the argument. Oh well.

Nice try. No joy, though: I'm not claiming that an inability to prove that God does not exist proves that one does.

You, however, made a very specific, very positive claim that God does not. My challenge that you prove it relates to that claim, and that claim only.

If you cannot prove that God does not exist, you cannot use the 'fact' that God does not exist as proof that, oh, Mary was not a virgin or that Jesus is not the Son of God.

...........though I do believe that this bit of logical begging of the question has been addressed in this thread quite well, and not by me.

By the way.

I cannot prove that Humpty Dumpty doesn't exist. Therefore Humpty Dumpty exists.

I'm calling you on the strawman here.

There has been no claim here that an inability to prove that God does not exist proves that one does. I haven't alluded to that possibility. Indeed, I've written quite often that an inability to prove that God is does not mean that He is not, and an inability to prove that He is not does not mean that He is.

You have come up with this one just to avoid the problem you just landed yourself into.

<snip a few paragraphs of you stretching this particular fallacy out a lot farther than it can be stretched...>

Here's the thing, atheist buddy. You made a very clear, positive claim that God does not exist. You use His non-existence as support for your position that Mary was not a virgin.

That's begging the question, and it's a very positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You made it. You prove it.

Simple.

ok.

I make the positive claim that the God of the Bible and the alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet do not exist on the basis of the fact that there is extensive empirical evidence for the fact that they do not exist, and no good evidence that they do.

Do you reject the notion that it's reasonable to make positive statements on the basis of extensive empirical evidence?

Surely you don't mind if I say "Evolution is a fact, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "The earth is a globe, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", right?

So why do you have a problem with me making a positive claim about the non-existence of God on the basis of equally strong empirical evidence?

The only reason a rational person would disagree with my positive statement is if she thought the empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, isn't all that strong.

If so, let's talk about it.

[dianaiad]

Here's the thing, atheist buddy. You made a very clear, positive claim that God does not exist. You use His non-existence as support for your position that Mary was not a virgin.

That's begging the question, and it's a very positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You made it. You prove it.

Simple.

ok.

I make the positive claim that the God of the Bible and the alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet do not exist on the basis of the fact that there is extensive empirical evidence for the fact that they do not exist, and no good evidence that they do.

Will you kindly STOP this?

You made a specific, positive claim that there is no god. You did not specify 'God of the Bible." You did not reference Hale Bop.

As well, what particular description of the 'God of the Bible' are you referring to here? Mine? The Catholic trinitarian description? the Calvinist one?

Throwing in Hale Bop is simply adding yet another fallacy, and frankly, I"m a bit tired of the moving the goal posts that you are doing, not to mention the appeal to ridicule.

You made a claim. God does not exist.

Prove it or retract the claim, and do not use 'God does not exist" as the REASON for your position on claims like "Mary was not a virgin,' etc.

Such a claim is precisely like the Christian who says:'

God exists because
The bible says so and
The bible is true because
God wrote it.

YOU say, instead, that

God does not exist because
There is no such thing as Virgin birth and
There are no such things as Virgin birth and other miracles because
God does not exist.

Circular reasoning. If you don't like it from the theist, what makes you think that it is acceptable from the atheist?

Do you reject the notion that it's reasonable to make positive statements on the basis of extensive empirical evidence?

Sure.

Show me some extensive empirical evidence that god does not exist.

I mean, really.

Show me some.

Surely you don't mind if I say "Evolution is a fact, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "The earth is a globe, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", right?

Not a problem. Show me some empirical evidence that god does not exist.

Not a refutation of a claim that a specific one DOES; evidence that one absolutely does not.

Because that is what your claim is.

So why do you have a problem with me making a positive claim about the non-existence of God on the basis of equally strong empirical evidence?

I have no problem with that.

Show me some. So far all you have done is commit one fallacy after another, dodged and obfuscated and wiggled. You haven't presented any evidence at all.

The only reason a rational person would disagree with my positive statement is if she thought the empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, isn't all that strong.

If so, let's talk about it.

That would be nice, for a change, yes.

[atheist buddy]

Here's the thing, atheist buddy. You made a very clear, positive claim that God does not exist. You use His non-existence as support for your position that Mary was not a virgin.

That's begging the question, and it's a very positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You made it. You prove it.

Simple.

ok.

I make the positive claim that the God of the Bible and the alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet do not exist on the basis of the fact that there is extensive empirical evidence for the fact that they do not exist, and no good evidence that they do.

Will you kindly STOP this?

You made a specific, positive claim that there is no god. You did not specify 'God of the Bible." You did not reference Hale Bop.

As well, what particular description of the 'God of the Bible' are you referring to here? Mine? The Catholic trinitarian description? the Calvinist one?

Throwing in Hale Bop is simply adding yet another fallacy, and frankly, I"m a bit tired of the moving the goal posts that you are doing, not to mention the appeal to ridicule.

You made a claim. God does not exist.

Prove it or retract the claim, and do not use 'God does not exist" as the REASON for your position on claims like "Mary was not a virgin,' etc.

Such a claim is precisely like the Christian who says:'

God exists because
The bible says so and
The bible is true because
God wrote it.

YOU say, instead, that

God does not exist because
There is no such thing as Virgin birth and
There are no such things as Virgin birth and other miracles because
God does not exist.

Circular reasoning. If you don't like it from the theist, what makes you think that it is acceptable from the atheist?

I'm not saying this at all. You are absolutely right that such an argument would be circular, but I'm not making that argument.

I am saying God does not exist because there is no evidence that God exist, and there is extensive evidence that he does not exist.

Do you reject the notion that it's reasonable to make positive statements on the basis of extensive empirical evidence?

Sure.

Show me some extensive empirical evidence that god does not exist.

I mean, really.

Show me some.

Surely you don't mind if I say "Evolution is a fact, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "The earth is a globe, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", right?

Not a problem. Show me some empirical evidence that god does not exist.

Not a refutation of a claim that a specific one DOES; evidence that one absolutely does not.

Because that is what your claim is.

To be sure, I never said he absolutely does not. I hold no claim to absolute truth.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's an absolute truth that, say, the earth is a globe. But surely you agree that it's pretty reasonable to make the positive claim "The earth is shaped like a globe", right?

So why do you have a problem with me making a positive claim about the non-existence of God on the basis of equally strong empirical evidence?

I have no problem with that.

Show me some. So far all you have done is commit one fallacy after another, dodged and obfuscated and wiggled. You haven't presented any evidence at all.

The only reason a rational person would disagree with my positive statement is if she thought the empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, isn't all that strong.

If so, let's talk about it.

That would be nice, for a change, yes.

Ok, let's do it, let's talk about some evidence for and against God.

As you rightly point out, we have to first define the God we're trying to find evidence for and against.

If you like, define God as per your beliefs and we can discuss that.

In the meantime, to give you an idea of what I mean, I will discuss the evidence for and against a literalist God, namely a God as described in the Bible, assuming the Bible is a literal description. I apologize in advance, because I am sure that you don't believe in this version yourself, but I gotta start from somewhere.

So, this god has the following attributes/resume.

1) He is omniscient/omnipotent. This is a logically impossible combination of attributes. Like being a bachelor's wife. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything he's going to do, and therefore doesn't have the power to change his mind, and therefore isn't omnipotent. If he's omnipotent, he has the power to change his mind, but if he does, he didn't knowhe was gonna change his mind otherwise by definition it wouldn't count as changing his mind, therefore he's not omniscient.

2) This entity is omnibenevolent, and yet he is cruel beyond description, starting out his career by murdering everybody, and ending it by torturing everybody for eternity.

3) This God is the source of our morality, and yet he is extermely immoral, advocating everything from rape, to murder, to slavery.

4) He is inerrant, and yet he makes a ton of mistakes (like not letting black people be clergymen).

These, and a ton of other contradictions, fatally demolish the concept of God as described in the Bible.

That is as far as positive evidence for the non-existence of God. This of course is coupled with the equally salient absence of evidence FOR his existence.

Then, separate from the evidence for and against the existence of such a God, is evidence for and against his activities, such as the genesis myth which is impossible because amon many other things, plants were NOT created before the stars, such as Noah's ark which is impossible on every level, such as the talking donkey, the parting of the sea, the rain of frogs, the virgin birth, the resurrection, the zombie invasion, etc, etc, etc. Each one of these events goes squarely against everything which we have evidence for being true. There is a ton of positive evidence that these events never happened.

In short, there is no evidence for the existence of the God of the literalist Bible, and no evidence for any of his alleged activities. That alone, is enough to disbelieve the positive claims that this God exists and performed the alleged activities. But there is also positive evidence that this God does not exist and did not do those activities, and therefore it's perfectly justifiable to make the positive claim that he doesn't exist and didn't carry out the alleged actions on the basis of the positive evidence.


Now, again, I totally understand that you don't believe in several of the literal claims of the Bible but believe in others (and I do wonder by what parameters you determine which ones are real and which ones aren't, or which ones are literal and which ones are metaphorical). So please don't respond by saying "I don't believe in the God as described in this post". I get that. Please start by agreeing or disagreeing that there is positive evidence for the non-existence of the God described in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and then if you want, describe the God you believe in and then we can switch to discussing the evidence for and against it.

[McCulloch]

I have two problems with the discussion or debate about God's existence:

1. without context, the word god is poorly defined. As evidenced even in this thread, there is some disagreement about what exactly is meant when we use the term god, so how can we possibly have a meaningful discussion about god's existence?
2. again without context, the meaning of the concept of existence is problematic. In logic and mathematics, we say that something exists only in the context of well defined sets. Outside of these fields, existence usually indicates that the identified thing can be demonstrated to be at at least one specific place and time. Since to many god is said to exist outside of time and space, god's alleged existence seems to be without meaning.

[atheist buddy]

I have two problems with the discussion or debate about God's existence:

1. without context, the word god is poorly defined. As evidenced even in this thread, there is some disagreement about what exactly is meant when we use the term god, so how can we possibly have a meaningful discussion about god's existence?
2. again without context, the meaning of the concept of existence is problematic. In logic and mathematics, we say that something exists only in the context of well defined sets. Outside of these fields, existence usually indicates that the identified thing can be demonstrated to be at at least one specific place and time. Since to many god is said to exist outside of time and space, god's alleged existence seems to be without meaning.

I know. This was just meant as a poll, just to get a snapshot of how people identify on this forum.

[atheist buddy]

Here's the thing, atheist buddy. You made a very clear, positive claim that God does not exist. You use His non-existence as support for your position that Mary was not a virgin.

That's begging the question, and it's a very positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You made it. You prove it.

Simple.

ok.

I make the positive claim that the God of the Bible and the alien spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet do not exist on the basis of the fact that there is extensive empirical evidence for the fact that they do not exist, and no good evidence that they do.

Will you kindly STOP this?

You made a specific, positive claim that there is no god. You did not specify 'God of the Bible." You did not reference Hale Bop.

As well, what particular description of the 'God of the Bible' are you referring to here? Mine? The Catholic trinitarian description? the Calvinist one?

Throwing in Hale Bop is simply adding yet another fallacy, and frankly, I"m a bit tired of the moving the goal posts that you are doing, not to mention the appeal to ridicule.

You made a claim. God does not exist.

Prove it or retract the claim, and do not use 'God does not exist" as the REASON for your position on claims like "Mary was not a virgin,' etc.

Such a claim is precisely like the Christian who says:'

God exists because
The bible says so and
The bible is true because
God wrote it.

YOU say, instead, that

God does not exist because
There is no such thing as Virgin birth and
There are no such things as Virgin birth and other miracles because
God does not exist.

Circular reasoning. If you don't like it from the theist, what makes you think that it is acceptable from the atheist?

Do you reject the notion that it's reasonable to make positive statements on the basis of extensive empirical evidence?

Sure.

Show me some extensive empirical evidence that god does not exist.

I mean, really.

Show me some.

Surely you don't mind if I say "Evolution is a fact, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "The earth is a globe, on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", or "water is two parts hydrogen one part oxygen on the basis of extensive empirical evidence", right?

Not a problem. Show me some empirical evidence that god does not exist.

Not a refutation of a claim that a specific one DOES; evidence that one absolutely does not.

Because that is what your claim is.

So why do you have a problem with me making a positive claim about the non-existence of God on the basis of equally strong empirical evidence?

I have no problem with that.

Show me some. So far all you have done is commit one fallacy after another, dodged and obfuscated and wiggled. You haven't presented any evidence at all.

The only reason a rational person would disagree with my positive statement is if she thought the empirical evidence that God doesn't exist, isn't all that strong.

If so, let's talk about it.

That would be nice, for a change, yes.

Dianaiad, out of curiosity, can you make any positive statement about the non existence of anything?

Is there any entity that you say "I believe that this entity does not exist"? For example Santa, Spiderman, Superman or Gandalf.

Is the positive statement "Santa doesn't exist in reality" true or not true, according to you? (that's a true dichotomy).





Also, I provided plenty of positive evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

But let's say you define God differently, and I agree that there is no positive evidence that your God doesn't exist.

There also isn't any positive evidence that your God exist.

So we're left with an hypothetical entity that neither has evidence for nor against his existence.

What is the logical conclusion from that state of affairs? Should we operate under the assumption that he doesn't exist becuase there is no evidence that he exists, or should we operate under the assumption that he exists because there is no evidence that he doesn't?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to dianaiad]

The way I see it, "self" requires "other" and vice versa. God having a "self" would be contingent on the existence of something other than God.

And a contingient God isn't God at all.

Explain that one to me, please?

Why must a self aware deity be contingent upon something (or someone) else?

It's because self requires other in the same way as up requires down.

And why would a deity with a 'history', or one that is, as you say, 'contingent,' not be a deity?

As I interpret the words, a deity could be contingient, but God with a capital G could not.

As has been recently mentioned, God hasn't at all been defined in this thread, so I've just been going with my own personal interpretation of what the question means.

........and please remember that I'm a Mormon. The idea of a 'contingent' God doesn't bother me a bit.

I've caught on about that, although I can't say that I understand how it's supposed to work.