Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I make a positive assertion because there is currently no evidence to support the concept of a god. To me this is not a philosophical debate because philosophy deals very much in the abstract.
Everything that was supposed to represent god when I was xian such as the holy spook anointing were self induced goosebumps.
The ONLY evidence I would consider now as concrete is a physical manifestation in front of two sober witnesses. That would make me believe a god is real but will not lead me to acknowledge or worship it.
Claiming some moral high ground of keeping your options open to new evidence is IMO a lame attempt in PC. What new evidence? The old evidence does not hold up to simple scrutiny. At least my definition for satisfactory evidence, for me would be sufficient, the way I am seeing some comments here is that any evidence "may" be acceptable for the keeping your options open folk.
Assuming I had this experience tonight, and posted about it tomorrow, how many here would be influenced by that "real" experience I had?
Probably no one. Would we need a collective evidence we all experience simultaneously? Maybe. The chances of anything like this happening is ZERO.
If we are to assume there is a remote possibility, how do we define that remote possibility addressed w/o refutation?
The only way to respond to your last question is with the old saw "Anything is possible". As we know, it isn't.
I have one question: If the "physical manifestation in front of two sober witnesses" occurred, and you thereafter believed a god was real, wouldn't that be 'acknowledging' it? Forgive me for word-parsing.
But do you see what other nonsense the "no matter how unlikely, if you cant prove its impossible you have to assume it may exist" line of thinking opens up? Youre suddenly thrust into a world potentially full of every kind of nonsense people, at any time, believed in.
From gods on chariots riding across the sky, to norse war gods, to the indian gods, to pagan gods, to supernatural entities etc etc etc.
I think you guys are ignoring the tidal wave of what that line of thinkibg means, and skating by with just God as a left over.
You dont have to know all the secrets of the universe in order to say you dont believe in the christian god or any other, but rather look at the world in perspective, recognize that with every religion people feel the same 100% conviction in their faith. The pastor preaching across the street from me feels the same conviction as the man in india praying to their god. The child seeing the gifts santa left probably feels the same way.
I think you guys suffer from the too much open minded bug. A completely open mind is not good as it lets in junk and validates nonsense. I think a filter is a good thing to have,as it filters out the nonsense from the worthwhile.
If you take that mindset, please dont skimp on the thousands of other gods people believed in and died for. Christianity captures only a third of the worlds population, afterall..
I agree with much of what you are saying and I gave you some rep to show my sincerety in that.
You are right, a theist may laugh off the prospect of a pink unicorn standing behind him while he reads this but when it comes to God he cannot apply this same way of thinking for some reason.
I agree with much of what you are saying and I gave you some rep to show my sincerety in that.
You are right, a theist may laugh off the prospect of a pink unicorn standing behind him while he reads this but when it comes to God he cannot apply this same way of thinking for some reason.
Because the pink Unicorn has no relevance upon existence. Unless you tell me that the pink Unicorn created the Universe, and then I would want to find out a little more about the pink Unicorn. Otherwise, I don't care if there is or isn't a pink Unicorn behind me, unless there is, and it is aggresive.
Because the pink Unicorn has no relevance upon existence. Unless you tell me that the pink Unicorn created the Universe, and then I would want to find out a little more about the pink Unicorn. Otherwise, I don't care if there is or isn't a pink Unicorn behind me, unless there is, and it is aggresive.
The only difference between the pink unicorn and the Christian God is:
1. The Christian God was introduced thousands of years ago.
2. The Christian God was introduced at an opportune time in history (meaning, before science allowed for rational answers to "the unexplainable.")
3. The Christian God is fully engrained in our western society.
4. A large percentage of the population grew up fully believing the Christian God is an actual entity.
5. Everyday, people get inundated with images/stories etc of the Christian God, to the point where the absurdity of it fades into the background - and otherwise logical people begin to differentiate it from other absurd nonsense of the world (ie, my friend the Pink Unicorn).
So in fact the pink unicorn and God have absolutely the same relevance upon existence, it's just 33% percent of society (according to Adherents) threw it's hands up and embraced the Christian God. Don't mistake that acceptance to be some magical proof the God exists and humans automatically recognize it - Christianities popularity spread is largely due to maneuverings of the church, very many times through violence and with the alternative either being death, or padding the numbers by forceful conversion.
Also, please don't mistake the Christian God as being the first God people ever found fulfillment by.
The only difference between the pink unicorn and the Christian God is:
1. The Christian God was introduced thousands of years ago.
2. The Christian God was introduced at an opportune time in history (meaning, before science allowed for rational answers to "the unexplainable.")
3. The Christian God is fully engrained in our western society.
4. A large percentage of the population grew up fully believing the Christian God is an actual entity.
5. Everyday, people get inundated with images/stories etc of the Christian God, to the point where the absurdity of it fades into the background - and otherwise logical people begin to differentiate it from other absurd nonsense of the world (ie, my friend the Pink Unicorn).
So in fact the pink unicorn and God have absolutely the same relevance upon existence, it's just 33% percent of society (according to Adherents) threw it's hands up and embraced the Christian God. Don't mistake that acceptance to be some magical proof the God exists and humans automatically recognize it - Christianities popularity spread is largely due to maneuverings of the church, very many times through violence and with the alternative either being death, or padding the numbers by forceful conversion.
Also, please don't mistake the Christian God as being the first God people ever found fulfillment by.
I don't give two craps about the "Christian" God. My comparison is between believing in any sort of creater God who might have started the Universe, and all of the possible implications of it's possible existence, and an inconsequential pink Unicorn.
I don't give two craps about the "Christian" God. My comparison is between believing in any sort of creater God who might have started the Universe, and all of the possible implications of it's possible existence, and an inconsequential pink Unicorn.
The only difference is:
A. The name.
B. That for some reason youre more accepting of a magical being who created us, rather than a peaceful magical pink unicorn who turns invisible and dissapears whenever a human is near.
The reason for your acceptance of the god nonsense over the unicorn nonsense is because youre inundated with stories and imagery of god, so in your mind the true absurdity of it all fades in the background...and it becomes acceptable.
Want an example? Can you imagine a one eyed warrior god in human form who waits for you to die in battle? Sound absurd to you? Well not to the vikings...it was as normal and acceptable as you think your idea of god is today.
A. The name.
B. That for some reason youre more accepting of a magical being who created us, rather than a peaceful magical pink unicorn who turns invisible and dissapears whenever a human is near.
The reason for your acceptance of the god nonsense over the unicorn nonsense is because youre inundated with stories and imagery of god, so in your mind the true absurdity of it all fades in the background...and it becomes acceptable.
Want an example? Can you imagine a one eyed warrior god in human form who waits for you to die in battle? Sound absurd to you? Well not to the vikings...it was as normal and acceptable as you think your idea of god is today.
Your assumption is incorrect. I understand an atheist position completely, and to a certain extent, sympathize. Where the difference is is here.
1) It is impossible to scientifically test whether or not a being exists outside of our physical realm.
1a)Therefore, there can be no scientific proof that such a being exists.
2) It is possible that such a being exists, and IS the cause of our existence, and further possible that this being has reasons for not physically proving itself.
2a) Since it is impossible to scientifically test whether or not a being of this magnitude exists, and since it is possible that such a being does exist, and since the cause of our existence is heretofor unknown, and since such a being could possibly desire something from me, I refuse to rule out it's possible existence, and will consider the implications until proven otherwise.
As a matter of fact, I would prefer that it did exist, most likely to the delight of many of those that don't believe that it does, as this gives them the argument of some psychological disposition that I may have to explain my desire.
As I see it, no matter the cause of our existence, it is no less bizarre. Either there is a being greater than us, outside of the universe that for some reason desired our existence, or there is not, and we came about by chance or through infinite chances, and rose to even wonder about our own existence. There is surely an argument to be made against the existence of a God, but niether that position or the Theist position is provable. I will still wait until all the cards are laid. In the meantime, may I not ridicule you for what you may or may not believe.
Ugh, not this "anything that cant be proven impossible must be taken to be possible" argument all over again. Sure, you can have that, but its your picking and choosing what is possible and not (ie, your dismissal of pink unicorn vs strong argument for a creator) that shows the weakness of that logic.
If you want to live in that world, picking and choosing what to defend is intellectually dishonest. Another give away is your attributing popular religious themes into your image of god (ie, him creating us, possibly wanting something from us, etc) - where did that come from? Perhaps molded by previous models of god (ie christian god)...? Why that matters is because a certain idea of him is engraind in our society, we are bombarded with it and eventually it becomes less absurd. So is it a great mystery you include those characteristics into your personal mold of him? Youve just added a spin on it..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
