Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

Lol you obviously didn't understand a word that I said until the end. So I'm going to ignore most of your post because you didn't say anything about it that I need to defend myself for; you just need to go back and read it until you understand it.

As for the last part, your entire argument is based on your beliefs, and you are acting upon those beliefs by arguing and calling others fools for what they believe when your argument isn't even right. You're doing the same exact thing you're saying the Hutu people did, only your actions are verbal.

And I said this before, but you apparently need to hear it. Conflict between groups is a part of human nature, not a part of religion. But the larger differences between groups means there is a greater chance of conflict, so religious beliefs which are beliefs that really define a person's life are easily a factor in the conflict. Even if you get rid of religion, conflict will still go on because it's human nature.

[Kurohami]

I haven't missed a thing of what you said, and I've countered all of them. You did not really overrode my arguments in the above post, so I don't really need to repeat myself. I agree that it is a part of human nature to fight, but some conflicts, in fact, many conflicts are seeded by beliefs in religions. They started the conflict because they think god is on their side, and that justify whatever they do, this is foolish, you cannot deny that. One cannot justify ones actions with beliefs that are not supported by evidences. This is not my belief, this is a simple law by which the world is operating upon. The religious groups can believe whatever they want to believe, but if they do something not right, their gods won't save them from the laws. Their belief simply will not defy Justice defined by the greater portion of the people. And you said I did the same thing as the Hutu, only verbal, how? I don't recall calling anyone fools, I only said acting upon unsupported belief is foolish. Is "acting upon unsupported belief" a person? If it is, sorry, I thought it is a normal phrase used  in the English language.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

how does those religious groups able to make such detailed books about gods and creation of the world such as the Bible?

Pen and paper.

Actually, no.  Most scripture began as an oral tradition.  In fact, with respect to the Christian tradition, scripture was only spoken for hundreds of years, and spoken word was considered divine.  It was only written down when the Jews were conquered (by the Persians, if I recall correctly) and they were forced to.  In Islam, many consider it to be blasphemy to translate the Qur'an into foreign languages.  Just to name two examples.

It is without a doubt that those religious text originates from our own imaginations.

Without a doubt you say? Hmmm.... then why do so many people not doubt them? It seems to me that if something is without a doubt, everyone and their mother would see it the same way.

Why do Americans drive on the right side of the road and the British on the left?  It's an ingrained behavior given by society.  In general (and I'm not saying you), religious people are some of the most ignorant people with respect to history.  They believe what their parents did because it is convenient.

Do you know what the oldest surviving version of the Bible is?  Do you know what language it's in?  Do you know when the New Testament was written?  Do you know in what order the gospels were written?  Do you know about Zoroaster/Mithras/Bacchus/etc and how the story of Jesus is directly plagiarized from them?  Do you know what role Constantine played in church history?  Do you know how the Bible was compiled, or why the Catholics have extra books?  Do you know why Catholic priests can't marry?

When I sit down and explain things to people, the response I normally get is "it's a good thing I don't really know all that, because then Christianity wouldn't really make sense".  As long as people will accept and embrace their ignorance, religion will persist.

So, if there is a god, we haven't had any conscious encounter with him/her

But in religious texts, people have had plenty of encounters with gods. And you haven't really proven that religious texts are false, so they might be true.

This is just idiotic.  Do you even understand what the burden of proof is? 

And I said this before, but you apparently need to hear it. Conflict between groups is a part of human nature, not a part of religion. But the larger differences between groups means there is a greater chance of conflict, so religious beliefs which are beliefs that really define a person's life are easily a factor in the conflict. Even if you get rid of religion, conflict will still go on because it's human nature.

Yes, violence is part of human nature, but religion takes it to a whole new level.  Wars will happen with or without religion, but at the end, people will go home.  When religion is introduced, and the reward is not on this earth or in this life, everything on earth and everyone living may be sacrificed to bring about "another world".  The stakes are raised exponentially.

If I told you to go blow yourself up to make the big invisible sky wizard happy and then he'll make you king of the playground in the sky, would you do it?  I'd hope not, because there is no reason to in this world.  But people do it for religion everyday.

[BluePriest]

I think all these statements about the burden of truth are quite contradictory on their own.

Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth?
It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.

Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?
It would be the person who said it doesnt exist.

The burden of truth itself is fundamentally flawed because the owner of that burden is the one going against the thought of the majority. So based on the burden of truth, if 51% of people believe that some type of higher being exists, then the people who DONT believe in one have the burden of truth to prove that one doesnt exist.

And heres the problem, facts are all relative. Take gravity for example, that is a very relative "fact". Dont believe me?

It is believed that is how it works. That isnt technically a fact though. Heres why.

What if I believed that God is the one in control of all things. If he is omnipotent, then this would be no problem. He is an intelligent being, and therefor wants  certain amount of order in an otherwise chaotic world. Therefor, one of the things he does to make the world orderly is pull everything down with an equal amount of force depending on their location. Man figured out what the formula god uses in this one instance is.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

I think all these statements about the burden of truth are quite contradictory on their own.

Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth?
It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.

Actually, Daxx summed it up nicely on page 7 of this thread:
"It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. In this instance, proving that God does not exist is impossible because there is no way to falsify his existance. This means that it is reasonable to assume that something like God, or an invisible pink unicorn, does not exist unless someone proves that it does."
"If there is no proof that something exists, it is reasonable to assume that it does not. That is the primary contention of those who answer the thread's question in the negative."
"One side (the side not making the positive claim) doesn't need evidence, as it is the default position."

Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?
It would be the person who said it doesnt exist.

No, because you could simply show them a monkey.  If they still deny it, then it is a metaphysical issue beyond the existence of the monkey.

The burden of truth itself is fundamentally flawed because the owner of that burden is the one going against the thought of the majority. So based on the burden of truth, if 51% of people believe that some type of higher being exists, then the people who DONT believe in one have the burden of truth to prove that one doesnt exist.

That's actually pretty close to the description of a logical fallacy.

It is believed that is how it works. That isnt technically a fact though. Heres why.

What if I believed that God is the one in control of all things. If he is omnipotent, then this would be no problem. He is an intelligent being, and therefor wants  certain amount of order in an otherwise chaotic world. Therefor, one of the things he does to make the world orderly is pull everything down with an equal amount of force depending on their location. Man figured out what the formula god uses in this one instance is.

That's an alternate explanation, but a fact would still be a fact.  That said, gravity is indeed not a fact.
FACT: When you drop something, it falls to the ground (isolated observation).
LAW: All falling objects fall according to the equation you posted.

Even still, the Newtonian "Law of Gravity" has been superseded by relativity, because that fits the facts better.

[Demagog]

how does those religious groups able to make such detailed books about gods and creation of the world such as the Bible?

Pen and paper.

Actually, no.  Most scripture began as an oral tradition.  In fact, with respect to the Christian tradition, scripture was only spoken for hundreds of years, and spoken word was considered divine.  It was only written down when the Jews were conquered (by the Persians, if I recall correctly) and they were forced to.  In Islam, many consider it to be blasphemy to translate the Qur'an into foreign languages.  Just to name two examples.

Actually, yes. In order to sit down and write those books, I'm pretty sure they used pen and paper. The answer I gave wasn't part of an argument, it was joke. Forgive me if it went above your heads.

It is without a doubt that those religious text originates from our own imaginations.

Without a doubt you say? Hmmm.... then why do so many people not doubt them? It seems to me that if something is without a doubt, everyone and their mother would see it the same way.

Why do Americans drive on the right side of the road and the British on the left?  It's an ingrained behavior given by society.  In general (and I'm not saying you), religious people are some of the most ignorant people with respect to history.  They believe what their parents did because it is convenient.

Do you know what the oldest surviving version of the Bible is?  Do you know what language it's in?  Do you know when the New Testament was written?  Do you know in what order the gospels were written?  Do you know about Zoroaster/Mithras/Bacchus/etc and how the story of Jesus is directly plagiarized from them?  Do you know what role Constantine played in church history?  Do you know how the Bible was compiled, or why the Catholics have extra books?  Do you know why Catholic priests can't marry?

When I sit down and explain things to people, the response I normally get is "it's a good thing I don't really know all that, because then Christianity wouldn't really make sense".  As long as people will accept and embrace their ignorance, religion will persist.

Just because religion ends that doesn't mean a god doesn't exist. That's an answer geared towards what this thread is about.

In response, he said it was without a doubt that religious scriptures such as the Bible were made through imagination. If that is true, then everyone would except it as true because no one would doubt it. But religion persists, so it's obviously not true. Sure, it all may be made through imagination, but it is definitely not "without a doubt."

So, if there is a god, we haven't had any conscious encounter with him/her

But in religious texts, people have had plenty of encounters with gods. And you haven't really proven that religious texts are false, so they might be true.

This is just idiotic.  Do you even understand what the burden of proof is? 

So just because he says religious texts are false we must accept that as true? Sure, the burden of proof may rely on those who support the religious texts, but until the proof is provided, neither side is correct. It's just like arguments regarding ontological skepticism. The burden of proof lies with those who say nothing outside yourself is real, but that can never be proven (it also can't be proven that everything outside yourself is real, and it might  also be that it can't be proven that anything outside yourself is real... I'm not sure about the latter, but I'm pretty sure it's correct).  So who is right? The answer is: we'll never know. They don't say, "Well until you provide proof that nothing outside of us exists, we're right," or they wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The fact is, is that it's possible.

And I said this before, but you apparently need to hear it. Conflict between groups is a part of human nature, not a part of religion. But the larger differences between groups means there is a greater chance of conflict, so religious beliefs which are beliefs that really define a person's life are easily a factor in the conflict. Even if you get rid of religion, conflict will still go on because it's human nature.

Yes, violence is part of human nature, but religion takes it to a whole new level.  Wars will happen with or without religion, but at the end, people will go home.  When religion is introduced, and the reward is not on this earth or in this life, everything on earth and everyone living may be sacrificed to bring about "another world".  The stakes are raised exponentially.

If I told you to go blow yourself up to make the big invisible sky wizard happy and then he'll make you king of the playground in the sky, would you do it?  I'd hope not, because there is no reason to in this world.  But people do it for religion everyday.

So you're basically agreeing with me. The more important a belief is to a person, the more likely they are to defend that belief. Religion is easily an extremely important part of a person, so it makes sense that people would defend it to the extreme. That doesn't mean religion is the cause. It's more like adding a catalyst to a slowly reacting mixture. If you were to change the mixture, however, the catalyst wouldn't do anything. If we could get past those parts of human nature (the acts of othering and grouping [another related term is ethnocentrism]), religion wouldn't be a catalyst anymore.

As an example of othering/grouping that has nothing to do with religion, this is quite interesting. Some indigenous tribes of the Amazon rain forest won't eat the foods that other tribes eat. Even if they come across a large animal with plenty of meat, they will ignore it. They do this because they believe eating those animals will make them like their enemies.

[Kurohami]

Actually, yes. In order to sit down and write those books, I'm pretty sure they used pen and paper.

Not necessarily, they might have used quills and parchments.

Sure, it all may be made through imagination, but it is definitely not "without a doubt."

For some, it might be doubtful, but for me it's without a doubt.

[BluePriest]

I think all these statements about the burden of truth are quite contradictory on their own.

Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth?
It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.

Actually, Daxx summed it up nicely on page 7 of this thread:
"It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. In this instance, proving that God does not exist is impossible because there is no way to falsify his existance. This means that it is reasonable to assume that something like God, or an invisible pink unicorn, does not exist unless someone proves that it does."
"If there is no proof that something exists, it is reasonable to assume that it does not. That is the primary contention of those who answer the thread's question in the negative."
"One side (the side not making the positive claim) doesn't need evidence, as it is the default position."

Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?
It would be the person who said it doesnt exist.

No, because you could simply show them a monkey.  If they still deny it, then it is a metaphysical issue beyond the existence of the monkey.

The burden of truth itself is fundamentally flawed because the owner of that burden is the one going against the thought of the majority. So based on the burden of truth, if 51% of people believe that some type of higher being exists, then the people who DONT believe in one have the burden of truth to prove that one doesnt exist.

That's actually pretty close to the description of a logical fallacy.

It is believed that is how it works. That isnt technically a fact though. Heres why.

What if I believed that God is the one in control of all things. If he is omnipotent, then this would be no problem. He is an intelligent being, and therefor wants  certain amount of order in an otherwise chaotic world. Therefor, one of the things he does to make the world orderly is pull everything down with an equal amount of force depending on their location. Man figured out what the formula god uses in this one instance is.

That's an alternate explanation, but a fact would still be a fact.  That said, gravity is indeed not a fact.
FACT: When you drop something, it falls to the ground (isolated observation).
LAW: All falling objects fall according to the equation you posted.

Even still, the Newtonian "Law of Gravity" has been superseded by relativity, because that fits the facts better.

Bolded part, contradictary. They have the burden of truth, as you said, they simply show the monkey. They hay have an easier burden of truth, but the burden is still there, that one statement alone is the whole point. They lesser majority has to prove it to the greater majority (no nmatter how easy or hard htat may be).


btw, heading to page 7, thanks for the info/

[Demagog]

Actually, yes. In order to sit down and write those books, I'm pretty sure they used pen and paper.

Not necessarily, they might have used quills and parchments.

Sure, it all may be made through imagination, but it is definitely not "without a doubt."

For some, it might be doubtful, but for me it's without a doubt.

Ya, I just decided to use different diction.

And you didn't say you were referring only to yourself in your other post, so I figured you were applying it universally. If it's without a doubt only to you, I have no problem with it.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

So just because he says religious texts are false we must accept that as true? Sure, the burden of proof may rely on those who support the religious texts, but until the proof is provided, neither side is correct. It's just like arguments regarding ontological skepticism. The burden of proof lies with those who say nothing outside yourself is real, but that can never be proven (it also can't be proven that everything outside yourself is real, and it might  also be that it can't be proven that anything outside yourself is real... I'm not sure about the latter, but I'm pretty sure it's correct).  So who is right? The answer is: we'll never know. They don't say, "Well until you provide proof that nothing outside of us exists, we're right," or they wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The fact is, is that it's possible.

You're kind of twisting words here.  You're pretty much saying "why should I accept what you say as true when you deny that what I say is true-with-no-proof is valid"?  He's saying religious texts have no tangible proof to back them up.  If you want to claim otherwise, give some reasons, not vague "possibilities".

And if you really want to push extreme skepticism, stop eating food and drinking water.  See how long that "possibility" the world doesn't exist works for you.  Every second of everyday has infinite "possibilities", but if you stopped to consider them all, you wouldn't get anywhere.  Being a possibility isn't good enough, claims need reasons to back them up.

Bolded part, contradictary. They have the burden of truth, as you said, they simply show the monkey. They hay have an easier burden of truth, but the burden is still there, that one statement alone is the whole point. They lesser majority has to prove it to the greater majority (no nmatter how easy or hard htat may be).

This is not contradictory.  You gave two scenarios:

1.  Say no one knew that monkeys existed. If one was seen, and someone swore up and down that they saw it, who would be the person with the burden of truth?  It would be the person who swore up and down that they saw it.

2. Now we all know that monkeys exist, so lets say the opposite. There was someone who said monkeys didnt exist. Who would be the person to have the burden of truth here?

In scenario 1, the person says "I have seen a monkey, which no one knew existed".  People would respond to this "Well, until you show me the monkey, I have no reason to take this as true."  It is then up to the person who made the claim to point to the monkey so others can see.

In scenario 2, the person is now saying "Despite what you say, I do not think monkeys exist."  However, he cannot just point to a spot and say "there's a non-monkey".  It doesn't make sense, and he cannot give proof. 

The only response would be "Monkeys do exist, because I have seen one."  Now you're back at scenario 1, where the person making an affirmative claim must point out the monkey.  There is only one burden of proof.

[Demagog]

So just because he says religious texts are false we must accept that as true? Sure, the burden of proof may rely on those who support the religious texts, but until the proof is provided, neither side is correct. It's just like arguments regarding ontological skepticism. The burden of proof lies with those who say nothing outside yourself is real, but that can never be proven (it also can't be proven that everything outside yourself is real, and it might  also be that it can't be proven that anything outside yourself is real... I'm not sure about the latter, but I'm pretty sure it's correct).  So who is right? The answer is: we'll never know. They don't say, "Well until you provide proof that nothing outside of us exists, we're right," or they wouldn't be debating it in the first place. The fact is, is that it's possible.

You're kind of twisting words here.  You're pretty much saying "why should I accept what you say as true when you deny that what I say is true-with-no-proof is valid"?  He's saying religious texts have no tangible proof to back them up.  If you want to claim otherwise, give some reasons, not vague "possibilities".

And if you really want to push extreme skepticism, stop eating food and drinking water.  See how long that "possibility" the world doesn't exist works for you.  Every second of everyday has infinite "possibilities", but if you stopped to consider them all, you wouldn't get anywhere.  Being a possibility isn't good enough, claims need reasons to back them up.

If he said that, please quote him, because this is what I remember him saying:

It is without a doubt that those religious text originates from our own imaginations.

That doesn't say "religious texts have no tangible proof to back them up," it says religious texts are false.

He also claims that "the religions and the belief of the religious groups are most likely false" based only on the above quote and his claim that "if there is a god, we haven't had any conscious encounter with him/her."

His first basis isn't true because religious texts are only possibly false. In his second, he is making a claim that no one has had any type of conscious encounter with a god, which is impossible for him to know.

Even if both are possibly true and both are required to support his main claim, there is only a 25% chance that both are true, so they can't be "most likely false." Even if only one is required to be true, it's a 50% chance, which is still not most. Granted, if all religious texts are entirely false, his claim is true, but we know there are truths in religious texts (and if that isn't true, we don't know that all religious texts are entirely false either).

[Kurohami]

That doesn't say "religious texts have no tangible proof to back them up," it says religious texts are false.

That is incorrect, I said the religious text originates from imagination, that doesn't mean there can be no truth to them. Does including a real world event in a fiction make the fiction non-made up? Even with some facts in them, a made up story is still a made up story. In fact, all fictions contain at least some truth to them, because it is near impossible to write something logical without having a basis in real world.

In his second, he is making a claim that no one has had any type of conscious encounter with a god, which is impossible for him to know.

I have not seen any evidence of a human having any conscious encounter with a god, so I assume there are none. My assumption stands until someone shows me evidence.