Why Doesn't Anyone Know What A God Is?

[DavidLeon]

Debate Question: What is a god? Why is it that no one seems to understand the simple concept of god anymore? Hopefully what I will do here is demonstrate why no one seems to know what a god is by demonstrating what exactly a god is. Hopefully.

[DavidLeon]

God produced a valid account testimony and if that isn't good enough for you, that's fine.

Ah, yes. An unsupported assertion followed by an Ad Hominem.

Yeah, I don't really get into that hypocritical pseudoscience smug arrogance without meaning or substance mumbo jumbo so popular with atheists on the Internet, so ...

In spite of your attempt to make it so, it's not my fault that I have noticed the weakness in the argument presented here. I've noticed the weakness because it is weak. You attempt to hide the weakness be pretending it is my fault for noticing it's flaws. Certainly, if your argumentation were valid, you could do better than blame me.

I'm not talking about any argument, I'm talking about reality. Let me rephrase it for you. Jehovah God the creator of heaven and earth has supplied all of us with a suitable testimony. If you don't believe it that's fine. Your choice. Your personal responsibility. Only you are accountable for your own decision. So one doesn't need to do anything except you. And you've done it so what are you complaining about? No one, not God or man, owes you an explanation or a more valid account. It's all up to you. It's on your shoulders. If anything went wrong in your decision process - it was your fault. No one else's. You can argue and debate about it until the cows come home, but that won't change anything. Anything.

[RJG]

In the unlikely event of the Biblical god existing, it owes humanity the curtesy of making its presence clear without any shadow of doubt.

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #131]

Jehovah God the creator of heaven and earth has supplied all of us with a suitable testimony. If you don't believe it that's fine.

Well this creation bit is dismissable with 19th century science.
Here: "creation" exists now, right? Nothing is creating anything?
This is true of five minutes ago, right?
This is true of five million minutes ago, right?
This is true of five billion minutes ago, right?

So at what time is any creation required, if everything is self-sustaining?
This is called conservation of mass (matter, energy, etc).

Once it was discovered, creation was proved a myth.

So, no creation, no creator.
No creator, no other myths are believable.

[brunumb]

Jehovah God the creator of heaven and earth has supplied all of us with a suitable testimony.

Or so the story goes.

If you don't believe it that's fine. Your choice.

Actually, it's not. You can't simply choose to believe. This is a very common fallacy that theists regularly throw into the ring. One is either convinced by the evidence, or not. If one does not find the evidence compelling, it is impossible to simply decide to believe regardless.

No one, not God or man, owes you an explanation or a more valid account.

Wrong again. What sort of pathetic god is incapable of providing irrefutable evidence that will convince everyone of his existence? Jehovah apparently had the wherewithal to create and fine tune an entire universe for human beings, but was incapable of applying that ability to fine tune the most important document ever intended for mankind. If he intends to impose such devastating consequences for failing to believe, then he most certainly does bear the responsibility of communicating his message without fail. Relying on indoctrination in selected groups hardly qualifies.

It's all up to you. It's on your shoulders. If anything went wrong in your decision process - it was your fault. No one else's. You can argue and debate about it until the cows come home, but that won't change anything. Anything.

Wrong once again. If the omnipotent Jehovah actually exists then failure to communicate that fact lies clearly with him. He would know what is required and have the ability to ensure that it happened. Given the huge number of people that do not believe in Jehovah, the most logical conclusion is that he does not exist. For those who believe otherwise, one may suppose that their threshold for self delusion in that regard is particularly low.

[DavidLeon]

Jehovah God the creator of heaven and earth has supplied all of us with a suitable testimony.

Or so the story goes.

Uh-huh.

If you don't believe it that's fine. Your choice.

Actually, it's not. You can't simply choose to believe. This is a very common fallacy that theists regularly throw into the ring. One is either convinced by the evidence, or not. If one does not find the evidence compelling, it is impossible to simply decide to believe regardless.

If we're talking about the faithful and the unfaithful let's have a definition of faith.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof; a system of religious belief; a strongly held belief or theory.

In this case, it's #1. You and I have the same evidence. So, I will amend my statement to this: If you don't have faith in it that's fine. Your choice. The real question becomes what would you rather believe and do you feel your belief or lack thereof is well founded. Because a lot of people have faith or lack faith in that which they have little accurate knowledge. People tend to believe and disbelieve what they want to believe and disbelieve. Faith and knowledge are important, in that order, but what you want should only be a result of rather than a premise for those. I started as an unbeliever looking to debunk what I thought was nonsense, and became a believer based upon the evidence which also exposed much of the misrepresentation of the Bible by the 'faithful' as nonsense.

No one, not God or man, owes you an explanation or a more valid account.

Wrong again. What sort of pathetic god is incapable of providing irrefutable evidence that will convince everyone of his existence?

The only evidence that you will ever accept as irrefutable is scientific atheistic propaganda because that is what you want to believe.

It's all up to you. It's on your shoulders. If anything went wrong in your decision process - it was your fault. No one else's. You can argue and debate about it until the cows come home, but that won't change anything. Anything.

Wrong once again. If the omnipotent Jehovah actually exists then failure to communicate that fact lies clearly with him. He would know what is required and have the ability to ensure that it happened. Given the huge number of people that do not believe in Jehovah, the most logical conclusion is that he does not exist. For those who believe otherwise, one may suppose that their threshold for self delusion in that regard is particularly low.

And if you are wrong then you blame him. That's your problem.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #131]

Jehovah God the creator of heaven and earth has supplied all of us with a suitable testimony. If you don't believe it that's fine.

Well this creation bit is dismissable with 19th century science.
Here: "creation" exists now, right? Nothing is creating anything?
This is true of five minutes ago, right?
This is true of five million minutes ago, right?
This is true of five billion minutes ago, right?

So at what time is any creation required, if everything is self-sustaining?
This is called conservation of mass (matter, energy, etc).

Once it was discovered, creation was proved a myth.

So, no creation, no creator.
No creator, no other myths are believable.

Well, there you go. You've got your answer. Nothing to complain about then is there?

[bluegreenearth]

If we're talking about the faithful and the unfaithful let's have a definition of faith.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof; a system of religious belief; a strongly held belief or theory.

In this case, it's #1. You and I have the same evidence. So, I will amend my statement to this: If you don't have faith in it that's fine. Your choice. The real question becomes what would you rather believe and do you feel your belief or lack thereof is well founded. Because a lot of people have faith or lack faith in that which they have little accurate knowledge. People tend to believe and disbelieve what they want to believe and disbelieve. Faith and knowledge are important, in that order, but what you want should only be a result of rather than a premise for those. I started as an unbeliever looking to debunk what I thought was nonsense, and became a believer based upon the evidence which also exposed much of the misrepresentation of the Bible by the 'faithful' as nonsense.

If faith = trust, then what is your logical justification for trusting in the theistic claims you endorse?

My logical justification for trusting science is that its hypotheses and theories are falsifiable but continue to survive every test designed to disprove them. Conversely, I don't personally have a logical justification for trusting unfalsifiable theistic claims because none of them can be ruled-out to demonstrate where one is any more reasonable to believe than any other. For this reason, I'm puzzled why anyone would engage in the futile activity of attempting to debunk an unfalsifiable theistic claim unless they are simply unaware that the claim is unfalsifiable. Were you aware that the claims you were previously attempting to debunk were unfalsifiable?

The only evidence that you will ever accept as irrefutable is scientific atheistic propaganda because that is what you want to believe.

I can only speak for myself, but it only seems reasonable for me to accept any evidence that functions to distinguish imaginary things from real things. Scientific evidence consistently functions in that capacity and is acceptable for that reason. If there is some other kind of evidence that could accomplish that objective, I would be willing to consider it.

[DavidLeon]

If faith = trust, then what is your logical justification for trusting in the theistic claims you endorse?

My logical justification for trusting science is that its hypotheses and theories are falsifiable but continue to survive every test designed to disprove them. Conversely, I don't personally have a logical justification for trusting unfalsifiable theistic claims because none of them can be ruled-out to demonstrate where one is any more reasonable to believe than any other. For this reason, I'm puzzled why anyone would engage in the futile activity of attempting to debunk an unfalsifiable theistic claim unless they are simply unaware that the claim is unfalsifiable. Were you aware that the claims you were previously attempting to debunk were unfalsifiable?

I can only speak for myself, but it only seems reasonable for me to accept any evidence that functions to distinguish imaginary things from real things. Scientific evidence consistently functions in that capacity and is acceptable for that reason. If there is some other kind of evidence that could accomplish that objective, I would be willing to consider it.

If, in your world, the only claim you can stake is of certainty, then I have nothing to tell you. If, however, your world of certainty should be brought to it's conclusion as foretold, and seemingly that is the case, then all that you are striving for is uncertainty. Perhaps when the time comes you will understand the faith of the meek who inherit the earth.

[bluegreenearth]

If, in your world, the only claim you can stake is of certainty, then I have nothing to tell you. If, however, your world of certainty should be brought to it's conclusion as foretold, and seemingly that is the case, then all that you are striving for is uncertainty. Perhaps when the time comes you will understand the faith of the meek who inherit the earth.

If I've understood your response correctly, then I should clarify that I do not require absolute certainty of anything. The most reasonable course of action is to proportion my level of confidence in a belief to the evidence supporting it. Where the evidence for a belief can help me reliably distinguish between real things and imagined things, I have a higher level of confidence proportioned to that belief. So far, the evidence that has been presented to me for theistic beliefs do not help me distinguish where such claims are describing anything more than something imaginary. As such, while I do not claim all theistic claims to be false, my confidence level in them is extremely low. If you have an objective method by which to discover if any unfalsifiable theistic claim is not just something someone imagined, then I'll consider giving it a chance. Otherwise, if it is just a matter of arbitrarily placing my faith in a theistic claim, then intellectual honesty compels me to reject that method because faith could be and has been used to justify all sorts of extraordinary unfalsifiable claims. If this irresponsible application of faith authorizes theists to inherit the earth, then like most inherited wealth, their prize will have been neither justifiably earned nor fairly allocated.

[DavidLeon]

If, in your world, the only claim you can stake is of certainty, then I have nothing to tell you. If, however, your world of certainty should be brought to it's conclusion as foretold, and seemingly that is the case, then all that you are striving for is uncertainty. Perhaps when the time comes you will understand the faith of the meek who inherit the earth.

If I've understood your response correctly, then I should clarify that I do not require absolute certainty of anything. The most reasonable course of action is to proportion my level of confidence in a belief to the evidence supporting it. Where the evidence for a belief can help me reliably distinguish between real things and imagined things, I have a higher level of confidence proportioned to that belief. So far, the evidence that has been presented to me for theistic beliefs do not help me distinguish where such claims are describing anything more than something imaginary. As such, while I do not claim all theistic claims to be false, my confidence level in them is extremely low. If you have an objective method by which to discover if any unfalsifiable theistic claim is not just something someone imagined, then I'll consider giving it a chance. Otherwise, if it is just a matter of arbitrarily placing my faith in a theistic claim, then intellectual honesty compels me to reject that method because faith could be and has been used to justify all sorts of extraordinary unfalsifiable claims. If this irresponsible application of faith authorizes theists to inherit the earth, then like most inherited wealth, their prize will have been neither justifiably earned nor fairly allocated.

I don't know what to say to that. I certainly don't suggest you arbitrarily put faith in any theistic claim, but I also don't know what evidence you've been presented that would allow you to distinguish properly something imaginary. You repeat the term unfalsifiable as if by rote. If I tell you that someone I know put a jet engine on their race car and it crashed through a house, leaving little evidence but their identification, their driver's licence and Bible were discovered moments later, unscathed by the police a half a mile away and all of the evidence as well as nearby video surveillance cameras were confiscated within minutes after the event took place you would accept that that was a believable account?

That's pretty much 911.

If intellectual honesty compels you to reject the supernatural then we're done at Genesis 1:1. What do you want me to say, wait until science can disprove God?