Does God Exist?

[Demagog]

Well the stuff you are referring to as coming from the imagination is the main point of the debate. We don't care if some guy said, "Good day, sir," or that someone drowned because they couldn't breathe underwater. When I say you're saying religious texts are false, I'm talking about the important stuff that applies to this debate.

Your assumption may be true, but you can't claim it as absolutely true. That would be like saying, "There is no evidence of any gods, so none exist." Instead, it should be, "There is no evidence of any gods, so it is possible none exist, so I choose to believe none exist." It is possible that no one has had any contact with any gods, but it is also possible that they have.

[Zigabogado]

How is this thread still going? Here, I have an answer.

God Exists.


Atheisim is win, pray moar.

Catholics rule.

A big bang created the earth.

Pick one of those answers, and be on with it, this topic shan't come to a final answer, so take it for what it is.

[Kurohami]

Well the stuff you are referring to as coming from the imagination is the main point of the debate. We don't care if some guy said, "Good day, sir," or that someone drowned because they couldn't breathe underwater. When I say you're saying religious texts are false, I'm talking about the important stuff that applies to this debate.

Your assumption may be true, but you can't claim it as absolutely true. That would be like saying, "There is no evidence of any gods, so none exist." Instead, it should be, "There is no evidence of any gods, so it is possible none exist, so I choose to believe none exist." It is possible that no one has had any contact with any gods, but it is also possible that they have.

I didn't claim it's absolutely true, I said it after I said there are no record of any encounters with god, so it's clear I said it as a inference to what I know. Also, I didn't say god don't exist, I actually think there might indeed be a higher existence of some kind controlling the world events to some extend, what I'm saying is that if this being indeed exists, it is most likely not akin to any of the way too personified gods described by the religions. I would highly doubt god would have a physical form like a homo sapien or some combination of animal parts if  god has any physical form at all. That's what I'm trying to say, I said nothing like god doesn't exist or religious people are stupid or whatever, which seems to be always what you are getting at.

[Demagog]

Well the stuff you are referring to as coming from the imagination is the main point of the debate. We don't care if some guy said, "Good day, sir," or that someone drowned because they couldn't breathe underwater. When I say you're saying religious texts are false, I'm talking about the important stuff that applies to this debate.

Your assumption may be true, but you can't claim it as absolutely true. That would be like saying, "There is no evidence of any gods, so none exist." Instead, it should be, "There is no evidence of any gods, so it is possible none exist, so I choose to believe none exist." It is possible that no one has had any contact with any gods, but it is also possible that they have.

I didn't claim it's absolutely true, I said it after I said there are no record of any encounters with god, so it's clear I said it as a inference to what I know. Also, I didn't say god don't exist, I actually think there might indeed be a higher existence of some kind controlling the world events to some extend, what I'm saying is that if this being indeed exists, it is most likely not akin to any of the way too personified gods described by the religions. I would highly doubt god would have a physical form like a homo sapien or some combination of animal parts if  god has any physical form at all. That's what I'm trying to say, I said nothing like god doesn't exist or religious people are stupid or whatever, which seems to be always what you are getting at.

Well the way you said it made it sound like you were claiming it as absolutely true, so it obviously wasn't clear what you meant or there wouldn't have been any confusion. And I know your stance, you said it already. My example in the second paragraph was an example; if you want the example applied to your argument though, it goes like this: "There is no evidence of anyone having conscious contact with any gods, so it is possible that no one has, so that is what I'll believe." It's not something you can apply as an argument because if it was, someone could say, "I believe a god exists, so a god exists" (or anything similar to this).

What I'm getting at is that your reasoning is incorrect, not that you are saying no gods exist, because that's not what you were saying, and that's the first thing you said.

[Kurohami]

The two examples are not the same thing. Mine is a assumption made base on known facts while the second one you stated is not a standing argument since it's a assumption based on beliefs. Facts are facts, beliefs are beliefs, they are different.

[Demagog]

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.

Your assumption is based on your knowledge. Belief is knowledge (go read Plato's Theaetetus and other philosophical writings concerning knowledge if you don't believe me).

Besides, the definition of assumption is belief based on something.

And it is not a known fact that no one has had a conscious encounter with any gods.

Just to make sure you understand, your assumption that no one has had any conscious encounter with a god is based on your knowledge/belief that there is no evidence to support it based on what you, personally, have seen. So, yes, the two examples are the same thing.

[Kurohami]

Well, no one has had any conscious encounter with god is not a known fact, that might be true, but based on known facts(which does not include a proven record of anyone having a conscious encounter with god), we can assume that there are no one who had a conscious encounter with god. If you say an assumption is a belief, that still differs from your other example since this is a belief based on known facts while the other is a belief based on a belief, that's the difference.

[Demagog]

Well, no one has had any conscious encounter with god is not a known fact, that might be true, but based on known facts(which does not include a proven record of anyone having a conscious encounter with god), we can assume that there are no one who had a conscious encounter with god. If you say an assumption is a belief, that still differs from your other example since this is a belief based on known facts while the other is a belief based on a belief, that's the difference.

Yes, you can assume/believe that no one has had an encounter with a god based on no proven record of anyone having done so, but you can't exclude the possibility that anyone has, which is what you seem to be doing.

[Kurohami]

I'm not claiming that's impossible, but I'm stating that with the facts we have, the best bet is to assume that no one has.

[Demagog]

Which is where you're wrong. There is no best bet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Kurohami]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." that is true, I'm not saying not having any evidence means it doesn't exist, but if the religious texts indeed come from real encounters with god, there would have been evidence. So, even if there are people who had these "divine contacts", they do not contribute to the religions that is the topic of our debate. And there is best bet, if there are no record of something very miraculous, it is most likely that something did not occur.

[Demagog]

So, hypothetically speaking, a billion years from now there is no evidence that we existed. An intelligent species uncovers a world history book that is somehow fully intact. They manage to decipher the language and then read through it. There's no evidence of anything other than the book. One being says the book is most likely fictive due to lack of any "real" evidence, while another says they can't make any assumptions either way because the book is the only evidence there is. So who is right?