What if there was no God?

[moonbogg]

I ducked out of the thread long enough for things to quiet down and relax. That's good. My view for today goes something like this.
If there is a God, it wouldn't be supernatural, because that's impossible. If something actually exists, that means its part of reality and anything that's real is a part of nature. So if God were discovered tomorrow, I think people would be underwhelmed since he would likely be nothing more than some very simple but necessary fundamental force or something like that, like a quantum troll face that just pops in and out of existence and laughs each time a universe is born.

 

[alzan]

You don't believe that. Now let's get past the nonsense, please.

Nice way to totally miss my point. I am saying that for a belief to be debated, people have to actually hold said belief. Of course, I think you understood my point already.

That's part of the issue; you've posted in this thread that your (general not personal) beliefs are being misrepresented or called nonsense and here you're saying that my or others' stated beliefs are nonsense. If you want respect for your stated beliefs you have to be willing to respect others' stated beliefs.

I wasn't missing your point, I was commenting on another point you raised earlier. As soulcougher pointed out in order debate a particular topic you need the history surrounding the topic, you don't need to personally hold one side or another as true. Could a conservative debate a liberal ideology, yes as long as they knew the history and particulars of the ideology.

Could a Hindu debate the Christian belief system or vice versa; of course they could.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's part of the issue; you've posted in this thread that your (general not personal) beliefs are being misrepresented or called nonsense and here you're saying that my or others' stated beliefs are nonsense. If you want respect for your stated beliefs you have to be willing to respect others' stated beliefs.

You don't believe in Unicorns, and we all know this. But be my guest...go on record as saying you do, and I won't call it nonsense. I called it nonsense because I think you're lying.

I wasn't missing your point, I was commenting on another point you raised earlier. As soulcougher pointed out in order debate a particular topic you need the history surrounding the topic, you don't need to personally hold one side or another as true. Could a conservative debate a liberal ideology, yes as long as they knew the history and particulars of the ideology.

Could a Hindu debate the Christian belief system or vice versa; of course they could.

Look at the format of the Ham v Nye debate - it was strictly focused on Creation v Evolution. Islam, Hindism, politics, were not mentioned.

Thats a formal debate, and what I was speaking to. You don't bring up other things that don't represent the viewpoints of your opponent. For example, if we are talking about Christianity, telling me about a false Hindu belief does nothing to address the merit of my own beliefs.

 

[Malak]

Then show me your evidence.

Irrational requests don't help your argument.

 

[witeken]

Irrational requests don't help your argument.

Asking for evidence is about the most rational thing you can ever do. If your evidence is irrational, it simply is not evidence. You should ask yourself how real your supposed 'evidence' is, because you don't want to life your whole life, all of your existence, in a delusion, do you?

 

[alkemyst]

Asking for evidence is about the most rational thing you can ever do. If your evidence is irrational, it simply is not evidence. You should ask yourself how real your supposed 'evidence' is, because you don't want to life your whole life, all of your existence, in a delusion, do you?

Is this your first time at debating the unknown?

 

[nixium]

Can believers just admit that their beliefs need no evidence in the scientific sense? That would clear this whole thing up. There's no way to prove the existence of any gods using current scientific methods.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in god(s) based on personal philosophies, experiences, or other people's writings.

It just means that the two domains are separate and you can't use one's language to talk to another. Science has no place for personal feelings of conviction, or god talking to you, or "signs from the universe". Religion has no place for utter deconstruction for every feeling and experience that leads someone to trust in a supreme deity. Much like art, such would unravel the whole experience.

Each has it's own use. Use antibiotics, but also pray. Don't kill someone - both because your god asks you not to, and also because you care about your fellow human beings and want to avoid jail time.

I see no conflict if the domains are separate.

 

[alzan]

You don't believe in Unicorns, and we all know this. But be my guest...go on record as saying you do, and I won't call it nonsense. I called it nonsense because I think you're lying.



Look at the format of the Ham v Nye debate - it was strictly focused on Creation v Evolution. Islam, Hindism, politics, were not mentioned.

Thats a formal debate, and what I was speaking to. You don't bring up other things that don't represent the viewpoints of your opponent. For example, if we are talking about Christianity, telling me about a false Hindu belief does nothing to address the merit of my own beliefs.

You nor anyone else knows what I believe unless I bring up my beliefs in a discussion. All anyone on these forums knows is what I've posted in this or other threads.

The merit to an adherent of any belief system is, like I said before, how they live and breathe the tenets of their faith. As far as I know no one has questioned how you live and breathe your faith.

 

[nixium]

I have a feeling this question is more relevant to monotheistic religions where there's a strong parent-child relationship to god/believer.

My beliefs are more in line with eastern schools of thought -

- Buddhists believe that reality is illusion "maya" and there's no "God" per se - just a path to enlightenment when the believer 'realizes' that. It's a form of transcendence, and you are supposed to live you life according to the 8-fold path in order to achieve this transcendence and break the cycle of rebirth.

- The Hindu school of thought is similar, except the predominant school is that everything in the universe is an expression of an entity called "god" and the goal of the believer is to transcend the illusion that he or she is separate from God. By following several different paths, you can "merge" with god and achieve enlightenment.

This is a simplified view of the philosophies. In either case, not having god could either mean one of the two things: one that the universe and everything we know ceases to "exist" as we know it. The other is that things proceed as normal, but following the 8-fold path or any of the hindu schools doesn't mean you reach enlightenment. Nothing would change otherwise, as these paths aren't opposed to science, existing political order, laws, or in any way you live your life. You'd just stop doing rituals and visiting temples, I suppose.

 

[alkemyst]

Can believers just admit that their beliefs need no evidence in the scientific sense? That would clear this whole thing up. There's no way to prove the existence of any gods using current scientific methods.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in god(s) based on personal philosophies, experiences, or other people's writings.

It just means that the two domains are separate and you can't use one's language to talk to another. Science has no place for personal feelings of conviction, or god talking to you, or "signs from the universe". Religion has no place for utter deconstruction for every feeling and experience that leads someone to trust in a supreme deity. Much like art, such would unravel the whole experience.

Each has it's own use. Use antibiotics, but also pray. Don't kill someone - both because your god asks you not to, and also because you care about your fellow human beings and want to avoid jail time.

I see no conflict if the domains are separate.

You are missing the argument, most believers would love to see proof of God scientifically. However; lack of proof never disproves anything. There is no such thing as a 'disproof' either in science.

Many things have been claimed to be science fiction, hoaxes, etc that were later proved in science as correct and true. We just lacked the ability at that time.

Many things have been theorized for centuries (or even 1000's of years) only to be proven recently in time.

 

[Retro Rob]

You nor anyone else knows what I believe unless I bring up my beliefs in a discussion. All anyone on these forums knows is what I've posted in this or other threads.

Well, do you believe unicorns perform miracles? Yes or No, please.

Really, this is where non-believers become irrational liars. You think that you can make something up and use it as evidence that I am doing the same thing I'm accusing atheists of, and that's misrepresenting our actual beliefs.

Is this what you call honesty and integrity on your part? Making up stuff and lying while intentionally dodging the question about your alleged beliefs in unicorns that perform miracles?

 

[IronWing]

There is no such thing as a 'disproof' either in science.

I think you mean no such thing as proving a negative. In science, it only takes a single verifible contrary observation to disprove a theory.

 

[witeken]

Is this your first time at debating the unknown?

I quote:

All the evidence is out there

You can't just post such a bold statement and then refuse to elaborate.

Btw, no.

 

[witeken]

Can believers just admit that their beliefs need no evidence in the scientific sense? That would clear this whole thing up. There's no way to prove the existence of any gods using current scientific methods.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in god(s) based on personal philosophies, experiences, or other people's writings.

It just means that the two domains are separate and you can't use one's language to talk to another. Science has no place for personal feelings of conviction, or god talking to you, or "signs from the universe". Religion has no place for utter deconstruction for every feeling and experience that leads someone to trust in a supreme deity. Much like art, such would unravel the whole experience.

Each has it's own use. Use antibiotics, but also pray. Don't kill someone - both because your god asks you not to, and also because you care about your fellow human beings and want to avoid jail time.

I see no conflict if the domains are separate.

There is a conflict, a huge one. The two domains are not separate. We all live on the same universe, so if everyone uses objective tools to investigate questions about it, we must all have the same answers. The answers must not depend on where you are born or what your parents believe.

 

[nixium]

You are missing the argument, most believers would love to see proof of God scientifically. However; lack of proof never disproves anything. There is no such thing as a 'disproof' either in science.

Many things have been claimed to be science fiction, hoaxes, etc that were later proved in science as correct and true. We just lacked the ability at that time.

Many things have been theorized for centuries (or even 1000's of years) only to be proven recently in time.

I think you missed half my point. I asset there's no way to prove or disprove a god using current scientific methods because "god" is not a properly scientifically defined concept, and will never be, and speaking of proofs/"disproofs"/scientific reason etc with respect to god is useless. Sure, believers would like to someday prove god with the scientific method but IMO it's a pipe dream. Better to drop that altogether and be honest with yourself, that you're believing something that can't be proven currently with our science.

You can only prove/disprove specific assertions. Eg. Someone will go to hell if they violate the 10 commandments. To prove this you need to prove hell, prove that a "soul" exists, and that somehow some order moves this soul to hell via some kind of procedure. How do you prove all this?

However, we can disprove it with current scientific methods. There's no scientific way to measure souls with our current knowledge (scientists have tried weighing bodies before/after death). Without this, we can conclude with our current knowledge that such a thing doesn't happen.

Sure, in the future we might find a cause for this, but that's really speculation. So you'll have to take it as a belief without evidence. Which is fine, but don't bring the scientific method into this.

 

[witeken]

You are missing the argument, most believers would love to see proof of God scientifically. However; lack of proof never disproves anything. There is no such thing as a 'disproof' either in science.

I think you refer to falsifiability. If a hypothesis is falsified, is effectively means it isn't true. But god isn't even a scientific hypothesis, it's just a concept invented by prehistorical people who didn't know anything.

In some case, absence of evidence really means evidence of absence.

 

[nixium]

There is a conflict, a huge one. The two domains are not separate. We all live on the same universe, so if everyone uses objective tools to investigate questions about it, we must all have the same answers. The answers must not depend on where you are born or what your parents believe.

No, they're separate because a single set of objective tools do not exist to answer all the questions there are. You can't use current science to resolve existential crises ("what is the meaning of life"). Sure, you could give it a try ("there is no real meaning, you're a part of an evolutionary process that's been going on for a billion years.... mate and die") Many may even be satisfied with that answer. But many won't be, and that's a void that religion fills.

That being said, I think you're referring to more "localized" conflicts such as evolution vs. intelligent design. Clearly in such cases science is the winner.

Also, my personal "religious" beliefs are more philosophic and spiritual as compared to those that follow a monotheistic system, so I personally don't have to deal with many of these conflicts, so it's easier for me to believe and be scientific.

And also, let me make it clear that blind adherence to what your parents taught you isn't what I'm referring to here. It's excusable as a child, but as an adult you have a responsibility to re-evaluate the core of your beliefs and discard things that don't make sense to you. Even the Buddha asked his followers not to blindly adopt his teachings - only those that made sense to them after intense self reflection.

 

[ThinClient]

If there is a God, it wouldn't be supernatural,

How do you know? With what authority do you make this claim?

because that's impossible.

How can you even say that?

 

[ThinClient]

Well, do you believe unicorns perform miracles? Yes or No, please.

Really, this is where non-believers become irrational liars. You think that you can make something up and use it as evidence that I am doing the same thing I'm accusing atheists of, and that's misrepresenting our actual beliefs.

Is this what you call honesty and integrity on your part? Making up stuff and lying while intentionally dodging the question about your alleged beliefs in unicorns that perform miracles?

Now you're debating belief, as if that matters?

Yes, we all know that you BELIEVE that Yeshua is real but your belief doesn't mean that Yeshua actually IS real.

THAT is what we question: whether your belief, no matter how strongly you believe it, is rational or not.

Your belief is irrational. It's not based on evidence. Your belief is just as valid as someone who really truly does believe that unicorns are real. Your belief and that person's belief are just as valid and equally as true.

In other words: it doesn't matter that you believe it's true. What matters is what really IS true.

 

[witeken]

I think you mean no such thing as proving a negative.

Yes, there is such a thing.

I think you missed half my point. I asset there's no way to prove or disprove a god using current scientific methods because "god" is not a properly scientifically defined concept, and will never be, and speaking of proofs/"disproofs"/scientific reason etc with respect to god is useless.

Surely it's possible to disprove god if you put some effort into it. The problem is that you have to go into uncharted territory, because there's no point in disproving something's existence. The way how science works, the scientific method, avoids all such nonsense altogether by investing how the universe does work and what does exist, and not how it doesn't or what doesn't.

However, it's easily enough possible to extend the principles of science (the scientific method) beyond where it's used in practice to come up with an explanation of god's nonexistence that's as scientific (as accurate) as realistically possible.

Also, I'd disagree with your assertion that god is not well defined. God is simply a supernatural being (it doesn't obey the laws of nature). As long as there is not even evidence of something supernatural, than surely there's not evidence of god's existence as well, which works more than good enough when trying to disprove god (because assuming that everything that's supernatural is god actually makes the chance of proving god higher).

Sure, believers would like to someday prove god with the scientific method but IMO it's a pipe dream. Better to drop that altogether and be honest with yourself, that you're believing something that can't be proven currently with our science.

To elaborate on what I said above; disproving of course depends on your definition. How rigorous do you want to be? To me the certainty is more than high enough, so searching for evidence seems an exercise in futility, because the chance that you'll find evidence is simply too low. This isn't a deficiency of the scientific method, it simply means that god doesn't exist.

To give an interesting example of why it isn't interesting to search for low probability explanations: life.
What science basically tries to do is find the easiest, simplest explanations of things (but not simpler, as Einstein said), so it should be obvious that biologists are wasting their time if earth really is the only planet with life; they'd have to search for an improbable explanation for how life could arise from nothing, which of course contradicts the principle I just explained.

However, we can disprove it with current scientific methods. There's no scientific way to measure souls with our current knowledge (scientists have tried weight bodies before/after death). Without this, we can conclude with our current knowledge that such a thing doesn't happen.

Sure, in the future we might find a cause for this, but that's really speculation.

But why do we actually have the concept of soul in the first place? Because ancient people invented it because they were afraid of death. So why should it be tested against reality if there isn't even a scientific need for such a concept at all?

My general rule of thumb is that most assumptions people have are wrong. This is exactly why.

So you'll have to take it as a belief without evidence. Which is fine, but don't bring the scientific method into this.

No, people must bring the scientific method into it, because it should make them realize that god in all likeliness does not exist or at least that their ideas don't have a reliable origin (an origin that isn't science).

 

[alzan]

Well, do you believe unicorns perform miracles? Yes or No, please.

Really, this is where non-believers become irrational liars. You think that you can make something up and use it as evidence that I am doing the same thing I'm accusing atheists of, and that's misrepresenting our actual beliefs.

Is this what you call honesty and integrity on your part? Making up stuff and lying while intentionally dodging the question about your alleged beliefs in unicorns that perform miracles?

Yes, I do believe that invisible unicorns perform miraculous healing in this world.

Which specific beliefs of Christians have been misrepresented? You keep making that accusation.

I told you before; when I've told of my belief in invisible unicorns that perform miraculous healing I've been met with disbelief which is why I'm reticent to reveal it. You yourself say I'm lying and making it up.

So there it is, bared for all the forum to see. Hope you're happy.

 

[Retro Rob]

Yes, I do believe that invisible unicorns perform miraculous healing in this world.

Which specific beliefs of Christians have been misrepresented? You keep making that accusation.

I told you before; when I've told of my belief in invisible unicorns that perform miraculous healing I've been met with disbelief which is why I'm reticent to reveal it. You yourself say I'm lying and making it up.

So there it is, bared for all the forum to see. Hope you're happy.

I'm happy that we all know how much of a liar you are.

You cannot levy crude personal attacks in DC.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm happy that we all know how much of a liar you are.

And were all happy to realize youre too stupud to wrap your head around a simple hypothetical. God your fucking dumb.

You're response is not up to DC standards.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Retro Rob]

And were all happy to realize youre too stupud to wrap your head around a simple hypothetical. God your fucking dumb.

Have you forgotten where you're posting?

 

[soulcougher73]

Have you forgotten where you're posting?

I call em as I see em. Truth is a bitch sometimes. PC be dammed.