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

[dianaiad]

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.

Fine. Show me some. So far you have spent a lot of writing doing your level best to avoid that.

You've moved the goalposts.
You've used appeal to ridicule.
You've been dodging around the point.

But I haven't seen any evidence.

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.

Ah, but that's the thing. That is precisely what you did do.

(from post 18 in this thread)

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

That is you making an absolute claim that no god exists, and using that nonexistence as support for your claim that god could not be self-aware. You have made other such claims, just as strongly stated, using the nonexistence of deity as the reason that some event could not have happened, such as Mary's virginity.

Begging the question.

The logical fallacies keep piling up here, and frankly, should a theist try this, he would, and quite rightly, be landed on...and hard.

The point is that if a theist who says that God exists and therefore this other thing is true, at least three, perhaps four, atheists on this forum would land all over said theist for making such a declaration. I would agree with those atheists, by the way, which is one of the reasons I don't do that, myself.

I really do not like double standards.

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?

You'd be wrong, if you think that the earth is a globe, actually. Close...but it's actually an 'oblate spheroid' which is 43 miles larger in diameter around the equator than it is when measured through the poles. Yeah, Yeah, 43 miles doesn't sound like much, but if the atmosphere surrounding the earth were a perfect sphere rather than following the shape of the planet, the equator would be sticking close to the outer edge of the stratosphere. So I suppose it makes a little bit of difference, there.

Anyway....

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.

No.

We don't.

You did not define the god you categorically declared nonexistence for. Indeed, you just, in the quote I gave above, declared that the non-existence of God precluded a definition. "only entities that exist can be self aware," remember?

I'm not arguing that god IS. I'm taking you to task for faulty logic, for making sloppy claims that you cannot support, and for piling up a rather large list of logical fallacies in so doing.

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

I don't like.

So far, you used the following fallacies in arguing your position:

false dichotomy; if god exists, then so do Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and Bigfoot.

Ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) "no rational person would..." equating the belief in god to belief in the Hale Bop aliens,

Begging the question (see quote regarding the possible self awareness of god)

reversal of burden You keep trying to turn this around on me, telling me that I have to prove that the deity I believe in is true, and that if I can't, then your absolute declaration that there is no god is thus proven.

It doesn't work that way for theists, and it doesn't work for you.

I have never claimed to be able to prove, empirically, that the description of deity I believe in is true, and my inability to do so does NOT prove that no god, of any description, exists. That's your claim, and I am not at all required to supply any evidence to you.

Your claim.
Your burden of proof.

I will give you this: your possible (probable, given the rhetorical two step you are doing) inability to prove that no god exists does not, in any way, prove that one does, or that the one I believe in is "True."

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.

<snip argument against a deity even you admit I don't believe in, and has a few logical fallacies in it, such as 'begging the question,' etc....>

These arguments, while interesting to read, are irrelevant--even if they did apply to the description of God that I believe in, and they don't, by your own admission.

Your claim was that no god (of any description) exists, and because one does not exist, one can't be self-aware. There is no requirement that the self-aware deity be your idea of a "biblical' god.

You said 'no gods exist."

You can go around and debunk every description of deity that you come across...usually a strawman version (as the one you have just described is)...and that is STILL not 'positive proof' that no god, of any description, exists.

you did NOT say 'the god you believe in does not exist."
You did NOT say 'the biblical god does not exist."

You wrote 'no god exists." and you used that nonexistence as 'proof' that no characteristic assigned to god is possible, and that no event said to be caused by god was caused by god.

I wonder if you get the point yet?

I GET that you don't believe that there is a god.
I get that.

You need to get that this is a debate forum, and the rules that apply to theists, when they claim that there IS a God, and once more, that their version of Him is true and THEREFORE evolution is false and/or the earth is 6,000 years old and/or (insert pretty much anything you like here) apply to you.

If a theist can't get away with this, then neither can you. You WILL be called on sloppy debate tactics, and so far, you've been very sloppy.

And so far you still have not given me any evidence at all for your claim that there is. no. god.

[atheist buddy]

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.

Fine. Show me some. So far you have spent a lot of writing doing your level best to avoid that.

You've moved the goalposts.
You've used appeal to ridicule.
You've been dodging around the point.

But I haven't seen any evidence.

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.

Ah, but that's the thing. That is precisely what you did do.

(from post 18 in this thread)

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

That is you making an absolute claim that no god exists, and using that nonexistence as support for your claim that god could not be self-aware. You have made other such claims, just as strongly stated, using the nonexistence of deity as the reason that some event could not have happened, such as Mary's virginity.

Begging the question.

The logical fallacies keep piling up here, and frankly, should a theist try this, he would, and quite rightly, be landed on...and hard.

The point is that if a theist who says that God exists and therefore this other thing is true, at least three, perhaps four, atheists on this forum would land all over said theist for making such a declaration. I would agree with those atheists, by the way, which is one of the reasons I don't do that, myself.

I really do not like double standards.

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?

You'd be wrong, if you think that the earth is a globe, actually. Close...but it's actually an 'oblate spheroid' which is 43 miles larger in diameter around the equator than it is when measured through the poles. Yeah, Yeah, 43 miles doesn't sound like much, but if the atmosphere surrounding the earth were a perfect sphere rather than following the shape of the planet, the equator would be sticking close to the outer edge of the stratosphere. So I suppose it makes a little bit of difference, there.

Anyway....

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.

No.

We don't.

You did not define the god you categorically declared nonexistence for. Indeed, you just, in the quote I gave above, declared that the non-existence of God precluded a definition. "only entities that exist can be self aware," remember?

I'm not arguing that god IS. I'm taking you to task for faulty logic, for making sloppy claims that you cannot support, and for piling up a rather large list of logical fallacies in so doing.

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

I don't like.

So far, you used the following fallacies in arguing your position:

false dichotomy; if god exists, then so do Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and Bigfoot.

Ad hominem (appeal to ridicule) "no rational person would..." equating the belief in god to belief in the Hale Bop aliens,

Begging the question (see quote regarding the possible self awareness of god)

reversal of burden You keep trying to turn this around on me, telling me that I have to prove that the deity I believe in is true, and that if I can't, then your absolute declaration that there is no god is thus proven.

It doesn't work that way for theists, and it doesn't work for you.

I have never claimed to be able to prove, empirically, that the description of deity I believe in is true, and my inability to do so does NOT prove that no god, of any description, exists. That's your claim, and I am not at all required to supply any evidence to you.

Your claim.
Your burden of proof.

I will give you this: your possible (probable, given the rhetorical two step you are doing) inability to prove that no god exists does not, in any way, prove that one does, or that the one I believe in is "True."

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.

<snip argument against a deity even you admit I don't believe in, and has a few logical fallacies in it, such as 'begging the question,' etc....>

These arguments, while interesting to read, are irrelevant--even if they did apply to the description of God that I believe in, and they don't, by your own admission.

Your claim was that no god (of any description) exists, and because one does not exist, one can't be self-aware. There is no requirement that the self-aware deity be your idea of a "biblical' god.

You said 'no gods exist."

You can go around and debunk every description of deity that you come across...usually a strawman version (as the one you have just described is)...and that is STILL not 'positive proof' that no god, of any description, exists.

you did NOT say 'the god you believe in does not exist."
You did NOT say 'the biblical god does not exist."

You wrote 'no god exists." and you used that nonexistence as 'proof' that no characteristic assigned to god is possible, and that no event said to be caused by god was caused by god.

I wonder if you get the point yet?

I GET that you don't believe that there is a god.
I get that.

You need to get that this is a debate forum, and the rules that apply to theists, when they claim that there IS a God, and once more, that their version of Him is true and THEREFORE evolution is false and/or the earth is 6,000 years old and/or (insert pretty much anything you like here) apply to you.

If a theist can't get away with this, then neither can you. You WILL be called on sloppy debate tactics, and so far, you've been very sloppy.

And so far you still have not given me any evidence at all for your claim that there is. no. god.

You're taking a tiny technicality in the language that I used, and trying to run away with it, in an effort not to confront the real question.

Of COURSE, I didn't mean that "God doesn't exist, no matter how you define him". Of course. You can't possibly think I meant that.

If you take the God as defined by Pantheists, then God=the Universe, in which case God obviously exists. Some guy stranded on a desert Island may consider a tall rock to be God. By that definition, God obviously exists. If you take the unmanifest God of the Deist, then it's unfalsifiable, and no statements can be made about his existence or non-existence.

I first stated that God doesn't exist, in the context of a discussion of Christian theology, and specifically the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I may have subsequently repeated that statement in contexts where it wasn't as clear that we were discussing that same Christian God, but nonetheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, as sloppy as I may have been with my language, I was referring to the God of the Bible throughout. And even if you want to blame me for the inadvertent oversight of specifying that, it's a semantic error, not a logical or philosophical one. You're trying to inflate this in an effort to avoid the true matter at hand - an open discussion of the evidence for and against the God you believe in.

Now, if you were the only Christian in the world, then my arguments against the existence of a Literalists God of the Bible which you personally don't subscribe to, would indeed be a strawman. But because you are not the only Christian in the world, and (scary, I know) there are people who believe in the literalist God I discussed, it's perfectly legitimate for me to start by providing positive evidence in support of the positive claim that such a God does not exist.

Maybe you're right that I shouldn't have made such a carpet statement as "God doesn't exist". Some people define the sun as God, and the sun exist. I should have said "The Abrahamic God, if we assume that the various Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Mormon literature accurately describe him, doesn't exist". so please suitably amend my previous statements, so we can resume the conversation from before it got derailed.

The authors of the Bible defined God very clearly, and I have provided positive logical evidence that he does not exist.

Now, if you have a different definition of God, please describe it, and let's see if it's a) the kind of God for which there is positive evidence he doenst exist, and for which therefore it's justified to make the positive claim that he doesn't exist or if it's b) the kind of God for which there is no positive evidence that he does exist, for which therefore it's not justified to make the positive claim that he does exist.

If you don't define your God, you can't blame me for being unable to demonstrate that he does not exist.

Why don' we just start from scratch instead of getting mired on these details. I will start by making the statement that a literal interpretation of the Bible depicts a deity for which there is positive evidence of non-existence, and for which positive belief in non-existence is therefore justified.

In response, you can either contest the evidence for that God's non-existence, or you can concede that I'm right, and we can move on to a different God and see if positive belief in his non-existence is justified in his case as well. We can discuss Zeus if you like, or Vishnu. Or, if you want, we can discuss the God you believe in, if you could kindly describe him.

Thanks,
AB

[dianaiad]

You're taking a tiny technicality in the language that I used, and trying to run away with it, in an effort not to confront the real question.

"tiny technicality?"

If you want to call the statement (which comprised the entirety of your post)

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

..a 'tiny technicality,' I suppose you can, at about the same level as saying that the Titanic had a bit of a leak in it...

Of COURSE, I didn't mean that "God doesn't exist, no matter how you define him". Of course. You can't possibly think I meant that.

Why can't I?

That's what you WROTE. Isn't mind reading supposed to be a supernatural ability attributable to the realm of gods, faeries and Bigfoot?

How am I supposed to know that you didn't really MEAN that god doesn't exist, and therefore god can't be self aware, because "only entities that exist can be self aware?"

If you didn't MEAN that, then you a: should not have written it, and b; having written it, should simply admit that you were sloppy and promise not to do it again, and c; not continue to defend your illogical and sloppy rhetoric by compounding it with logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy.

So...you didn't mean it. What DID you mean?

If you take the God as defined by Pantheists, then God=the Universe, in which case God obviously exists. Some guy stranded on a desert Island may consider a tall rock to be God. By that definition, God obviously exists. If you take the unmanifest God of the Deist, then it's unfalsifiable, and no statements can be made about his existence or non-existence.

OK, nice beginning.

....but that isn't what you wrote, is it?

However, since you are now doing some actual thinking now, and examining your position, I'll lighten up.

I first stated that God doesn't exist, in the context of a discussion of Christian theology, and specifically the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I may have subsequently repeated that statement in contexts where it wasn't as clear that we were discussing that same Christian God, but nonetheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, as sloppy as I may have been with my language, I was referring to the God of the Bible throughout.

No, it takes a mind reader. Don't assume that everybody on this forum is talking specifically and only about the god described in the bible as YOU interpret it, all the time and from every belief system.

We aren't.

I liked your post for this thread, btw...simple.

but it turns out that it was, perhaps, too simple. Even you are here deciding that the only possible god in existence is the 'biblical' god as you describe him...

And I hate to break this to you, but that's not only NOT the only possible description of God, it's not even a majority opinion of Him, even for the folks posting in here.

Indeed, it is an extreme minority view of Him, as far as I can see.

Therefore, why wouldn't it take a mind reading genius to figure out which description you are referring to, especially in a statement as far reaching and definitive as:

"Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware?"

You understand, do you not, that the VAST majority of theists believe that the description of deity in which they believe includes self awareness?

Indeed, 'cogito ergo sum' applies to pretty much all of 'em.

How are we supposed to know that you were referring only to the specific biblical god of your description?

And even if you want to blame me for the inadvertent oversight of specifying that, it's a semantic error, not a logical or philosophical one.

If you wish.

However, it's one you repeated more than once, and most definitely.

If you want to revise that, and remember it in the future, it would be a good thing.

You're trying to inflate this in an effort to avoid the true matter at hand - an open discussion of the evidence for and against the God you believe in.

Reversal of burden again.

You claimed that god does not exist. I have not claimed that He does, only that I believe that He does. Your claim was categorical. I have stated many times that I can't prove, empirically, that God exists. YOu have stated, also many times, that you have positive empirical evidence that he does not.

your burden of proof. Don't land it on me. BTW, even if you could prove that the God you describe doesn't exist, it means nothing at all to me...I don't happen to believe in the description you are using. In fact, you have no real idea WHAT I believe in terms of that. Yet you still claim that the god I believe in does not exist, and demand that I prove He does.

Sorry, but it's your claim, and your burden.

Now, if you were the only Christian in the world, then my arguments against the existence of a Literalists God of the Bible which you personally don't subscribe to, would indeed be a strawman. But because you are not the only Christian in the world, and (scary, I know) there are people who believe in the literalist God I discussed, it's perfectly legitimate for me to start by providing positive evidence in support of the positive claim that such a God does not exist.

Not if your claim is that 'no god exists.' You could debunk every single description of deity you ever come across and you STILL haven't proven the non-existence of any possible iteration of deity, of any description...

And that is what you claimed when you said that god can't be self aware because only beings that exist can be self aware, and god does not exist.

All WE have to go by is what you actually write, atheist buddy. One statement like that can be dismissed as 'semantic error,' but you have written this precise claim more than once, using the nonexistence of deity as proof that things that are NOT 'Christian" or 'literalist biblical" cannot be...such as self awareness.

Maybe you're right that I shouldn't have made such a carpet statement as "God doesn't exist".

Whew. All that sturm und drung, and finally....That's exactly right, and it was my only point. Be careful.

What I have put you through here is what ANY theist gets in here when one makes such a categorical statement, and rightly so. This hasn't been an attack on your disbelief, atheist buddy. It's been a lesson on rhetorical tactics in debate.

Some people define the sun as God, and the sun exist. I should have said "The Abrahamic God, if we assume that the various Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Mormon literature accurately describe him, doesn't exist". so please suitably amend my previous statements, so we can resume the conversation from before it got derailed.

OK....

Does that mean that you meant to write 'The Abrahamic God, if we assume that the various Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Mormon literature accurately describe him, doesn't exist, and therefore god cannot be self aware, since only gods described in the Abrahamic traditions can be god?

I didn't notice that the person to whom you were responding with that two line declaration was referring only to an Abrahamic deity, actually. In fact, since that person was me, I can tell you that I wasn't. I was simply asking a question "why can't god be self aware?" There was no reference to a specific description of deity in that question. None.

In fact, none of the posters who contributed to that discussion were talking about the literalist god of the bible as you describe him. Elijah John is a deist. Far Wanderer is more atheist than deist, but still is willing to examine the idea of an impersonal god, and I?

I'm a Mormon.

Doesn't that put a bit of a knot in your argument, there?

The authors of the Bible defined God very clearly, and I have provided positive logical evidence that he does not exist.

Evidently not all THAT clearly, since there are over 30,000 different interpretations of the god described in the bible (and that only counts Jewish and Christian GROUPS, not individuals). You can argue against YOUR interpretation, but those arguments don't really work against mine, and (whisper this one) I get my description of Him from the bible, too.

Now, if you have a different definition of God, please describe it, and let's see if it's a) the kind of God for which there is positive evidence he doenst exist, and for which therefore it's justified to make the positive claim that he doesn't exist or if it's b) the kind of God for which there is no positive evidence that he does exist, for for which therefore it's not justified to make the positive claim that he does exist.

If you don't define your God, you can't blame me for being unable to demonstrate that he does not exist.

You keep TRYING this reversal of burden fallacy, atheist buddy.

It didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work now. Your claim...and you did make it...was that no god exists. Indeed, you used the 'fact' that no god exists to prove that one could not be self aware, since only 'entities that exist can be self aware."

That's pretty solid, categorical, and it's rather difficult to dismiss as a 'semantic error,' or to claim that it 'wouldn't take a genius' to figure out that YOU were talking specifically about a literalist description of a biblical god, especially when none of the folks to whom you were responding were talking about a literalist biblical god.

atheist buddy, repeat after me and you'll get an "A" in 'debating in a forum that actually tries to use logic".

"Yes, dianaiad, you win. I should not have made such a categorical statement. If a theist made an equivalent statement, he'd be laughed off the forum, and the same rules apply to me. I won't do it again, but will remember that one cannot prove a negative, and also that simply because I cannot prove that there is no possibility of a god, it doesn't mean I have to admit that there is one."

there. See?

I am NOT claiming that your inability to prove that no god exists proves that mine does.

I am NOT going to fall for your too often repeated demand that I prove that my description of deity so that you can argue about that, thus avoiding the subject, which is your claim that no god exists.

It's your claim.
your proof.

I don't have to, and I'm not going to, try to prove that the description of God I believe in is true so that you can change the subject.

If you have questions about my own beliefs, ask 'em. There's even a sub forum where you can go to do just that: "Questions for a belief."

Why don' we just start from scratch instead of getting mired on these details. I will start by making the statement that a literal interpretation of the Bible depicts a deity for which there is positive evidence of non-existence, and for which positive belief in non-existence is therefore justified.

Then start a new thread for that. THIS one is still unresolved.

In response, you can eithr context the evidence for that God's non-existence, or you can concede that I'm right, and we can move on to a different God and see if positive belief in his non-existence is justified in his case as well. We can discuss Zeus if you like, or Vishnu. Or, if you want, we can discuss the God you believe in, if you could kindly describe him.

Thanks,
AB

(sigh)

You could spend your entire life doing nothing but debunking every possible description of deity you come across. How does that prove that god does not exist?

[atheist buddy]

You're taking a tiny technicality in the language that I used, and trying to run away with it, in an effort not to confront the real question.

"tiny technicality?"

If you want to call the statement (which comprised the entirety of your post)

Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware.

..a 'tiny technicality,' I suppose you can, at about the same level as saying that the Titanic had a bit of a leak in it...

Of COURSE, I didn't mean that "God doesn't exist, no matter how you define him". Of course. You can't possibly think I meant that.

Why can't I?

That's what you WROTE. Isn't mind reading supposed to be a supernatural ability attributable to the realm of gods, faeries and Bigfoot?

How am I supposed to know that you didn't really MEAN that god doesn't exist, and therefore god can't be self aware, because "only entities that exist can be self aware?"

If you didn't MEAN that, then you a: should not have written it, and b; having written it, should simply admit that you were sloppy and promise not to do it again, and c; not continue to defend your illogical and sloppy rhetoric by compounding it with logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy.

So...you didn't mean it. What DID you mean?

If you take the God as defined by Pantheists, then God=the Universe, in which case God obviously exists. Some guy stranded on a desert Island may consider a tall rock to be God. By that definition, God obviously exists. If you take the unmanifest God of the Deist, then it's unfalsifiable, and no statements can be made about his existence or non-existence.

OK, nice beginning.

....but that isn't what you wrote, is it?

However, since you are now doing some actual thinking now, and examining your position, I'll lighten up.

I first stated that God doesn't exist, in the context of a discussion of Christian theology, and specifically the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I may have subsequently repeated that statement in contexts where it wasn't as clear that we were discussing that same Christian God, but nonetheless, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, as sloppy as I may have been with my language, I was referring to the God of the Bible throughout.

No, it takes a mind reader. Don't assume that everybody on this forum is talking specifically and only about the god described in the bible as YOU interpret it, all the time and from every belief system.

We aren't.

I liked your post for this thread, btw...simple.

but it turns out that it was, perhaps, too simple. Even you are here deciding that the only possible god in existence is the 'biblical' god as you describe him...

And I hate to break this to you, but that's not only NOT the only possible description of God, it's not even a majority opinion of Him, even for the folks posting in here.

Indeed, it is an extreme minority view of Him, as far as I can see.

Therefore, why wouldn't it take a mind reading genius to figure out which description you are referring to, especially in a statement as far reaching and definitive as:

"Because he doesn't exist.

Only entities which exist can be self-aware?"

You understand, do you not, that the VAST majority of theists believe that the description of deity in which they believe includes self awareness?

Indeed, 'cogito ergo sum' applies to pretty much all of 'em.

How are we supposed to know that you were referring only to the specific biblical god of your description?

And even if you want to blame me for the inadvertent oversight of specifying that, it's a semantic error, not a logical or philosophical one.

If you wish.

However, it's one you repeated more than once, and most definitely.

If you want to revise that, and remember it in the future, it would be a good thing.

You're trying to inflate this in an effort to avoid the true matter at hand - an open discussion of the evidence for and against the God you believe in.

Reversal of burden again.

You claimed that god does not exist. I have not claimed that He does, only that I believe that He does. Your claim was categorical. I have stated many times that I can't prove, empirically, that God exists. YOu have stated, also many times, that you have positive empirical evidence that he does not.

your burden of proof. Don't land it on me. BTW, even if you could prove that the God you describe doesn't exist, it means nothing at all to me...I don't happen to believe in the description you are using. In fact, you have no real idea WHAT I believe in terms of that. Yet you still claim that the god I believe in does not exist, and demand that I prove He does.

Sorry, but it's your claim, and your burden.

Now, if you were the only Christian in the world, then my arguments against the existence of a Literalists God of the Bible which you personally don't subscribe to, would indeed be a strawman. But because you are not the only Christian in the world, and (scary, I know) there are people who believe in the literalist God I discussed, it's perfectly legitimate for me to start by providing positive evidence in support of the positive claim that such a God does not exist.

Not if your claim is that 'no god exists.' You could debunk every single description of deity you ever come across and you STILL haven't proven the non-existence of any possible iteration of deity, of any description...

And that is what you claimed when you said that god can't be self aware because only beings that exist can be self aware, and god does not exist.

All WE have to go by is what you actually write, atheist buddy. One statement like that can be dismissed as 'semantic error,' but you have written this precise claim more than once, using the nonexistence of deity as proof that things that are NOT 'Christian" or 'literalist biblical" cannot be...such as self awareness.

Maybe you're right that I shouldn't have made such a carpet statement as "God doesn't exist".

Whew. All that sturm und drung, and finally....That's exactly right, and it was my only point. Be careful.

What I have put you through here is what ANY theist gets in here when one makes such a categorical statement, and rightly so. This hasn't been an attack on your disbelief, atheist buddy. It's been a lesson on rhetorical tactics in debate.

Some people define the sun as God, and the sun exist. I should have said "The Abrahamic God, if we assume that the various Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Mormon literature accurately describe him, doesn't exist". so please suitably amend my previous statements, so we can resume the conversation from before it got derailed.

OK....

Does that mean that you meant to write 'The Abrahamic God, if we assume that the various Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Mormon literature accurately describe him, doesn't exist, and therefore god cannot be self aware, since only gods described in the Abrahamic traditions can be god?

I didn't notice that the person to whom you were responding with that two line declaration was referring only to an Abrahamic deity, actually. In fact, since that person was me, I can tell you that I wasn't. I was simply asking a question "why can't god be self aware?" There was no reference to a specific description of deity in that question. None.

In fact, none of the posters who contributed to that discussion were talking about the literalist god of the bible as you describe him. Elijah John is a deist. Far Wanderer is more atheist than deist, but still is willing to examine the idea of an impersonal god, and I?

I'm a Mormon.

Doesn't that put a bit of a knot in your argument, there?

The authors of the Bible defined God very clearly, and I have provided positive logical evidence that he does not exist.

Evidently not all THAT clearly, since there are over 30,000 different interpretations of the god described in the bible (and that only counts Jewish and Christian GROUPS, not individuals). You can argue against YOUR interpretation, but those arguments don't really work against mine, and (whisper this one) I get my description of Him from the bible, too.

Now, if you have a different definition of God, please describe it, and let's see if it's a) the kind of God for which there is positive evidence he doenst exist, and for which therefore it's justified to make the positive claim that he doesn't exist or if it's b) the kind of God for which there is no positive evidence that he does exist, for for which therefore it's not justified to make the positive claim that he does exist.

If you don't define your God, you can't blame me for being unable to demonstrate that he does not exist.

You keep TRYING this reversal of burden fallacy, atheist buddy.

It didn't work the first time, and it's not going to work now. Your claim...and you did make it...was that no god exists. Indeed, you used the 'fact' that no god exists to prove that one could not be self aware, since only 'entities that exist can be self aware."

That's pretty solid, categorical, and it's rather difficult to dismiss as a 'semantic error,' or to claim that it 'wouldn't take a genius' to figure out that YOU were talking specifically about a literalist description of a biblical god, especially when none of the folks to whom you were responding were talking about a literalist biblical god.

atheist buddy, repeat after me and you'll get an "A" in 'debating in a forum that actually tries to use logic".

"Yes, dianaiad, you win. I should not have made such a categorical statement. If a theist made an equivalent statement, he'd be laughed off the forum, and the same rules apply to me. I won't do it again, but will remember that one cannot prove a negative, and also that simply because I cannot prove that there is no possibility of a god, it doesn't mean I have to admit that there is one."

there. See?

I am NOT claiming that your inability to prove that no god exists proves that mine does.

I am NOT going to fall for your too often repeated demand that I prove that my description of deity so that you can argue about that, thus avoiding the subject, which is your claim that no god exists.

It's your claim.
your proof.

I don't have to, and I'm not going to, try to prove that the description of God I believe in is true so that you can change the subject.

If you have questions about my own beliefs, ask 'em. There's even a sub forum where you can go to do just that: "Questions for a belief."

Why don' we just start from scratch instead of getting mired on these details. I will start by making the statement that a literal interpretation of the Bible depicts a deity for which there is positive evidence of non-existence, and for which positive belief in non-existence is therefore justified.

Then start a new thread for that. THIS one is still unresolved.

In response, you can eithr context the evidence for that God's non-existence, or you can concede that I'm right, and we can move on to a different God and see if positive belief in his non-existence is justified in his case as well. We can discuss Zeus if you like, or Vishnu. Or, if you want, we can discuss the God you believe in, if you could kindly describe him.

Thanks,
AB

(sigh)

You could spend your entire life doing nothing but debunking every possible description of deity you come across. How does that prove that god does not exist?

Dianaiad, you have had to abandon pretty much every exchange you and I have had.

Now you've finally found one where I made what you agree is just a semantic error, not a logical one or a philosophical one, and you cannot believe your eyes. You will beat that dead horse till it's been torn to shreds.

Ok.

I get it.

I am sorry. I will be more careful about being semantically correct next time. I should not have said "God does not exist". I should have said "The Abrahamic God does not exist". Just because the site is called Debating Christianity and Religion, and not "debating various God possibilities with all religions being given equal time", and just because every single exchange I've had here has been about the Christian God, and just because I have not seen anybody here who isn't a Christian or an atheist, I should not have had the temerity to presume that God in this context might be understood to mean Abrahamic God. I should have written those 9 all important letters in that sentence. "A B R A H A M I C". Your response was absolutely adequate. If instead of launching on this 4 page tangential rant, you had just written "Wait do you mean any God, or just the God of the Bible - the one we've been talking about exclusively so far?", I wouldn't have learned the importance of being precise. It was wrong of me to imply that you were engaging in a massive diversion. Clearly you are doing this just because you find precision very important, and simply asking me to clarify would not have been sufficient........

The statement "A positive integer between 4 and 5 does not exist" is unassailable because "the positive integer between 4 and 5" is a clearly defined concept. "God" is not a defined concept. As I said, God could be, and IS, defined by some as the sun, as the universe, as a bunch of things which exist. Therefore by many such definitions, God irrefutably DOES exist. I am really really really sorry, that by failing to spell out the all-important 9 letters in front of the word God, I led you to the conclusion that I don't believe the sun exists. I completely understand now that if I don't specify "Abrahamic" when I say "God doesn't exist", it could mean it's just an oversight, or it could mean that I don't believe the sun exist, and that it's totally understandable that, because you can't read my mind, you have no way of knowing whether it was an oversight or whether I don't believe the sun exist. You are absolutely right that there is no way you could have made an educated guess there. It's entirely on me to make sure I don't accidentally imply though an oversight that I don't believe the sun exists, because it's totally justified for people to run with that notion, and it's in no way argumentative of them to do so.


Anyway, because it was indeed just a semantic oversight, and I am not invested in it's importance (unlike others I could name), I will, for one last time, set the record straight:

I believe the literal God of the Bible does not exist, on the basis of positive evidence in support of my belief.

The blanket statement "God doesn't exist" - meaning any and all definitions of God, including the sun - was never intended, becuase it's clearly indifensible. Please amend all my previous statements in which, in a forum about christianity, talking specifically about Christianity, talking to a Christian, I write simply "God does not exist", to "The God depicted from a literal interpretation of the Bible" does not exist.

Ok????

Now that we've put that to rest, how would you like to proceed?

We can either discuss the evidence for the non-existence of the literal Abrahamic God, or we can talk about YOUR definition of God - if different.


Please understand that I'm not trying to go through all the definitions of God, so that I can eventually go back to my "God doens't exist" blanket statement. I did not mean then, do not mean now, and never will mean that any and all definitions of God do not exist. The exact opposite is true. The sun exists, and some people worship the sun. It's just some definitions of God that fall under the umbrella of "God doesn't exist".

If you refuse to tell me what your definition of God is, I can't tell you whether it exists or not.

[atheist buddy]

You could spend your entire life doing nothing but debunking every possible description of deity you come across. How does that prove that god does not exist?

I am not trying to prove, I'm trying to provide sufficient positive evidence to justify a positive assertion. And I'm not trying to do that for the generic term "God", which could mean anything from the universe to Jim Morrison, but for the literal god of the Bible.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof? Do you want me to go on a 10 page tirade chastizing you for accidentally using one word when you should have used a different one?

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, you have had to abandon pretty much every exchange you and I have had.

have I, indeed?

If you choose to see it that way.

Now you've finally found one where I made what you agree is just a semantic error, not a logical one or a philosophical one, and you cannot believe your eyes. You will beat that dead horse till it's been torn to shreds.

Actually, I did not agree. Indeed, I stated that I was willing to go with that...until you continued to argue about it.

What you ARE doing is shifting goalposts. And you got caught. Don't do it any more and all will be well.

Ok.

I get it.

Good.

I am sorry. I will be more careful about being semantically correct next time. I should not have said "God does not exist". I should have said "The Abrahamic God does not exist".

That would be good, especially when replying to not one, or two, but THREE people who were not referring to the 'Abrahamic God" as you describe Him. Just as a point of clarification.

Just because the site is called Debating Christianity and Religion, and not "debating various God possibilities with all religions being given equal time", and just because every single exchange I've had here has been about the Christian God, and just because I have not seen anybody here who isn't a Christian or an atheist, I should not have had the temerity to presume that God in this context might be understood to mean Abrahamic God.

Exactly right. you should not have. Especially when the folks doing the conversing are not believers in the description of the Abrahamic God as you describe Him.

I should have written those 9 all important letters in that sentence. "A B R A H A M I C". Your response was absolutely adequate. If instead of launching on this 4 page tangential rant, you had just written "Wait do you mean any God, or just the God of the Bible - the one we've been talking about exclusively so far?",

I might have, had we indeed been talking about the Abrahamic God you describe. But we weren't, and that's the problem.

I wouldn't have learned the importance of being precise. It was wrong of me to imply that you were engaging in a massive diversion. Clearly you are doing this just because you find precision very important, and simply asking me to clarify would not have been sufficient........

The statement "A positive integer between 4 and 5 does not exist" is unassailable because "the positive integer between 4 and 5" is a clearly defined concept. "God" is not a defined concept. As I said, God could be, and IS, defined by some as the sun, as the universe, as a bunch of things which exist. Therefore by many such definitions, God irrefutably DOES exist. I am really really really sorry, that by failing to spell out the all-important 9 letters in front of the word God, I led you to the conclusion that I don't believe the sun exists. I completely understand now that if I don't specify "Abrahamic" when I say "God doesn't exist", it could mean it's just an oversight, or it could mean that I don't believe the sun exist, and that it's totally understandable that, because you can't read my mind, you have no way of knowing whether it was an oversight or whether I don't believe the sun exist. You are absolutely right that there is no way you could have made an educated guess there. It's entirely on me to make sure I don't accidentally imply though an oversight that I don't believe the sun exists, because it's totally justified for people to run with that notion, and it's in no way argumentative of them to do so.

By George, I think he's got it.

Anyway, because it was indeed just a semantic oversight, and I am not invested in it's importance (unlike others I could name), I will, for one last time, set the record straight:

I believe the literal God of the Bible does not exist, on the basis of positive evidence in support of my belief.

Which version of the 'literal God of the Bible?" There are many descriptions of God that people honestly do think are 'the literal God of the Bible,' and they differ. This doesn't mean that they are all right, or all wrong; just different.

The blanket statement "God doesn't exist" - meaning any and all definitions of God, including the sun - was never intended, becuase it's clearly indifensible.

OK then. That took awhile, but good for you.

Please amend all my previous statements in which, in a forum about christianity, talking specifically about Christianity, talking to a Christian, I write simply "God does not exist", to "The God depicted from a literal interpretation of the Bible" does not exist.

Ok????

the name of the forum is 'Debating Christianity & Religion', and the subforum is 'Christianity and Apologetics' which seems to be a catch all for discussion of Christianity, yes, but for the apologetics of everything else, as well.

....not to mention that Christianity itself is so disparate a group of beliefs that one could discuss frank deism all the way to snake handling fundamentalists and still be in the "Christianity' area. Indeed, I know at least one Christian (and a preacher, at that) who is a frank atheist. He just likes the moral and philosophical teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth.

Now that we've put that to rest, how would you like to proceed?

We can either discuss the evidence for the non-existence of the literal Abrahamic God, or we can talk about YOUR definition of God - if different.


Please understand that I'm not trying to go through all the definitions of God, so that I can eventually go back to my "God doens't exist" blanket statement. I did not mean then, do not mean now, and never will mean that any and all definitions of God do not exist. The exact opposite is true. The sun exists, and some people worship the sun. It's just some definitions of God that fall under the umbrella of "God doesn't exist".

If you refuse to tell me what your definition of God is, I can't tell you whether it exists or not.

There is a difference between someone's belief in God and God Him/Her/Itself.

Simply because someone may believe that the sun is God, it does not follow automatically that the sun is, in reality, a deity.

Indeed, you touched on that with your claim that God could not be self aware because God does not exist and only entities that exist can be self aware.

How does that jibe with your idea that the sun is God because some people claim that it is? I mean, the sun does indeed exist. It is not self aware as far as I know. Doesn't that screw your argument up a bit?

but atheist buddy, please excuse me, but since I have never claimed to be able to prove my beliefs to be 'True' empirically, why should I tell you what they are and let you decide--for ME and as a matter of debate-- whether the god I believe in exists or not?

give me one good reason for that?

[JoeyKnothead]

Dude, let it go. You said too much, and now some of us, well she's gon' think we got us some goofy notions too.

It's insufficient to declare "God doesn't exist, 'cause y'all ain't shown he does".

God doesn't exist, 'cause it is, the god concept doesn't require him to do it. The god concept is a psychological tool to comfort the incredulous. It works to sooth a mind discomforted by the unknown and unknowable.

He don't exist for they can't show he does, he don't exist for it is, there's an explanation for why they think he does.

[atheist buddy]

Dianaiad, you have had to abandon pretty much every exchange you and I have had.

have I, indeed?

If you choose to see it that way.

Now you've finally found one where I made what you agree is just a semantic error, not a logical one or a philosophical one, and you cannot believe your eyes. You will beat that dead horse till it's been torn to shreds.

Actually, I did not agree. Indeed, I stated that I was willing to go with that...until you continued to argue about it.

What you ARE doing is shifting goalposts. And you got caught. Don't do it any more and all will be well.

Ok.

I get it.

Good.

I am sorry. I will be more careful about being semantically correct next time. I should not have said "God does not exist". I should have said "The Abrahamic God does not exist".

That would be good, especially when replying to not one, or two, but THREE people who were not referring to the 'Abrahamic God" as you describe Him. Just as a point of clarification.

Just because the site is called Debating Christianity and Religion, and not "debating various God possibilities with all religions being given equal time", and just because every single exchange I've had here has been about the Christian God, and just because I have not seen anybody here who isn't a Christian or an atheist, I should not have had the temerity to presume that God in this context might be understood to mean Abrahamic God.

Exactly right. you should not have. Especially when the folks doing the conversing are not believers in the description of the Abrahamic God as you describe Him.

I should have written those 9 all important letters in that sentence. "A B R A H A M I C". Your response was absolutely adequate. If instead of launching on this 4 page tangential rant, you had just written "Wait do you mean any God, or just the God of the Bible - the one we've been talking about exclusively so far?",

I might have, had we indeed been talking about the Abrahamic God you describe. But we weren't, and that's the problem.

I wouldn't have learned the importance of being precise. It was wrong of me to imply that you were engaging in a massive diversion. Clearly you are doing this just because you find precision very important, and simply asking me to clarify would not have been sufficient........

The statement "A positive integer between 4 and 5 does not exist" is unassailable because "the positive integer between 4 and 5" is a clearly defined concept. "God" is not a defined concept. As I said, God could be, and IS, defined by some as the sun, as the universe, as a bunch of things which exist. Therefore by many such definitions, God irrefutably DOES exist. I am really really really sorry, that by failing to spell out the all-important 9 letters in front of the word God, I led you to the conclusion that I don't believe the sun exists. I completely understand now that if I don't specify "Abrahamic" when I say "God doesn't exist", it could mean it's just an oversight, or it could mean that I don't believe the sun exist, and that it's totally understandable that, because you can't read my mind, you have no way of knowing whether it was an oversight or whether I don't believe the sun exist. You are absolutely right that there is no way you could have made an educated guess there. It's entirely on me to make sure I don't accidentally imply though an oversight that I don't believe the sun exists, because it's totally justified for people to run with that notion, and it's in no way argumentative of them to do so.

By George, I think he's got it.

Anyway, because it was indeed just a semantic oversight, and I am not invested in it's importance (unlike others I could name), I will, for one last time, set the record straight:

I believe the literal God of the Bible does not exist, on the basis of positive evidence in support of my belief.

Which version of the 'literal God of the Bible?" There are many descriptions of God that people honestly do think are 'the literal God of the Bible,' and they differ. This doesn't mean that they are all right, or all wrong; just different.

The blanket statement "God doesn't exist" - meaning any and all definitions of God, including the sun - was never intended, becuase it's clearly indifensible.

OK then. That took awhile, but good for you.

Please amend all my previous statements in which, in a forum about christianity, talking specifically about Christianity, talking to a Christian, I write simply "God does not exist", to "The God depicted from a literal interpretation of the Bible" does not exist.

Ok????

the name of the forum is 'Debating Christianity & Religion', and the subforum is 'Christianity and Apologetics' which seems to be a catch all for discussion of Christianity, yes, but for the apologetics of everything else, as well.

....not to mention that Christianity itself is so disparate a group of beliefs that one could discuss frank deism all the way to snake handling fundamentalists and still be in the "Christianity' area. Indeed, I know at least one Christian (and a preacher, at that) who is a frank atheist. He just likes the moral and philosophical teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth.

Now that we've put that to rest, how would you like to proceed?

We can either discuss the evidence for the non-existence of the literal Abrahamic God, or we can talk about YOUR definition of God - if different.


Please understand that I'm not trying to go through all the definitions of God, so that I can eventually go back to my "God doens't exist" blanket statement. I did not mean then, do not mean now, and never will mean that any and all definitions of God do not exist. The exact opposite is true. The sun exists, and some people worship the sun. It's just some definitions of God that fall under the umbrella of "God doesn't exist".

If you refuse to tell me what your definition of God is, I can't tell you whether it exists or not.

There is a difference between someone's belief in God and God Him/Her/Itself.

Simply because someone may believe that the sun is God, it does not follow automatically that the sun is, in reality, a deity.

Indeed, you touched on that with your claim that God could not be self aware because God does not exist and only entities that exist can be self aware.

How does that jibe with your idea that the sun is God because some people claim that it is? I mean, the sun does indeed exist. It is not self aware as far as I know. Doesn't that screw your argument up a bit?

but atheist buddy, please excuse me, but since I have never claimed to be able to prove my beliefs to be 'True' empirically, why should I tell you what they are and let you decide--for ME and as a matter of debate-- whether the god I believe in exists or not?

give me one good reason for that?

Because it matters whether beliefs are empirically true

[dianaiad]

but atheist buddy, please excuse me, but since I have never claimed to be able to prove my beliefs to be 'True' empirically, why should I tell you what they are and let you decide--for ME and as a matter of debate-- whether the god I believe in exists or not?

give me one good reason for that?

Because it matters whether beliefs are empirically true[/quote]

It does?

Why?

Tell me; you do have a moral and ethical system which guides your actions, and by which you judge the morality of your own actions and those of others. Can you prove to me, empirically, that your moral/ethical system is the 'true' one? The one that is superior to all others?

I do believe, and my experience in life has shown this to be workable, that there are two types of knowledge; one we get through empirical means, and one emotional; one is objective, one subjective.

Those things that we can learn through the scientific method are objective (usually...I still get a giggle when I read the original fights regarding the Big Bang). However, there are things, important to us and our happiness and enjoyment of life, that cannot be arrived at empirically.

Love, for instance.

How can you prove that your spouse loves you...that the motives for what s/he does for you come from love of you; thinking more of you than of him/herself?

you can't prove that empirically. There is NOTHING that someone can do for you that might not have a practical, selfish, motive. Not a thing...but you, I'm sure, believe that those who love you don't do things for you for selfish reasons, yes? You get that through other means of learning things.

Religion is like that. The difference between us is that I don't have a problem with it, and you do.

As for me, I love learning things that science and those who investigate stuff with the scientific method. It's a wonder to me.

.....and learning stuff that way does not, in any way, lessen my belief in God, and my belief in God only increases my appreciation for the things we learn through science.

But empirical evidence does not, and cannot, prove everything. There are a few things for which the scientific method is utterly inappropriate; whether I love my children, or your spouse loves you....or whether God is.

[atheist buddy]

Tell me; you do have a moral and ethical system which guides your actions, and by which you judge the morality of your own actions and those of others. Can you prove to me, empirically, that your moral/ethical system is the 'true' one? The one that is superior to all others?

I'm sorry, I cannot continue this conversation, unless you demonstrate to my satisfaction that you understand the difference between proof and evidence, and unless you agree never again in the future to use the word proof when what you mean is evidence.

I can provide compelling evidence that my moral system is superior to that of, say, the Taliban, but I cannot prove it.

I can provide evidence that Jesus wasn't born of a virgin. But I cannot prove it.

I can provide evidence that the God with the attributes described in the Bible is internally contradictory and therefore logically impossible, but I cannot prove it.

I can provide evidence that my name is Julia, but I cannot prove it.


There is no such thing as "empirical proof", or "proving something empirically".

There are just claims supported by empirical evidence, and claims not supported by empirical evidence.


I need you to understand this or we cannot continue our debate.