|
Post by tohellwithhades on Aug 20, 2009 12:50:51 GMT -5
Gangrene, I would like to start a constructive debate with you about the existence of God. I know this topic has been beaten beyond all recognition, but it feels like most of the prior debates/discussions turned ugly and became ultimately pointless.
If you would list your core reasons behind your belief of God's non-existence, I will list my core reasons behind my belief of His existence. From there, I would like to go back and forth with explanations, questions, serious critiques, etc. How does that sound?
NOTE: Everyone, this is intended as a serious thread and not the place for stupid, provocative, and meaningless banter. I don't want this discussion to turn into what all the others have.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Aug 20, 2009 18:56:13 GMT -5
There really isn't much to discuss.
I don't feel like arguing any more. I actually argued with one of those stupid preachers outside the theatre before seeing District 9. It doesn't matter how educated or ignorant you are on the subject, you either have faith in God's existence or you don't. The preacher guy was some indoctrinated fool who used faulty logic constantly, the watchmaker argument, said scientists are lying to us, etc. He was a joke. But someone who can argue for the existence of God using sound logic still cannot convince me at this point in my life because...
We as humans can only experience the natural world, I believe it is impossible to know of any God because science can explain which exists in the known universe. No God can be scientifically proven.
|
|
|
Post by nightometal on Aug 20, 2009 19:33:57 GMT -5
It sounds to me like you hold Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" doctrine (that is, that faith is believing in something without, or in spite of, scientific, empirical evidence) but, obviously, don't find it logical to make that leap because it is on faith alone.
But maybe I slightly misunderstand you, or I'm trying to classify you into a school of philosophy I find interesting for the sake of it.
Out of curiosity, was the preacher like a street preacher or some random guy you got in a conversation with?
When I was waiting in line for Amon Amarth and Skeletonwitch one walked up to me and asked if I knew the good news and showed me a picture of the Virgin Mary lol.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Aug 20, 2009 19:45:43 GMT -5
Never heard of that guy, I'm just using basic logic. What can be seen can be explained.
It was some random guy. Used the classic appeal to emotions, scare tactics, even gave $1 for answering questions. Generic preacher with no education, just regurgitating non-sense and fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by Van Zan on Aug 20, 2009 20:10:37 GMT -5
Logic king has never heard of greatest philosopher of all time. Daniel lols. Seriously though, I can see your position Gangrene. I agree with you that the faith in God is more of a condition of heart than mind, but it is not an irrational faith. Without a shouting match, because I respect that you're tired of it, I would like to suggest that you yourself put an unbased faith in your assumption that human beings can only experience the material world. That's like assuming colors cannot exist if you're blind. My suggestion is to not limit yourself to any mode of perception just because you're more in touch with it, or it's more commonly accepted in a scientific circle.
|
|
|
Post by tohellwithhades on Aug 21, 2009 0:03:15 GMT -5
There really isn't much to discuss. I don't feel like arguing any more. I actually argued with one of those stupid preachers outside the theatre before seeing District 9. It doesn't matter how educated or ignorant you are on the subject, you either have faith in God's existence or you don't. The preacher guy was some indoctrinated fool who used faulty logic constantly, the watchmaker argument, said scientists are lying to us, etc. He was a joke. But someone who can argue for the existence of God using sound logic still cannot convince me at this point in my life because... We as humans can only experience the natural world, I believe it is impossible to know of any God because science can explain which exists in the known universe. No God can be scientifically proven. Well, if you don't want to, I can certainly understand sir. I just figured I would ask because I love these kinds of discussions.
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Aug 21, 2009 1:35:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Azrael on Aug 21, 2009 19:42:48 GMT -5
It sounds to me like you hold Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" doctrine (that is, that faith is believing in something without, or in spite of, scientific, empirical evidence) but, obviously, don't find it logical to make that leap because it is on faith alone. But maybe I slightly misunderstand you, or I'm trying to classify you into a school of philosophy I find interesting for the sake of it. Out of curiosity, was the preacher like a street preacher or some random guy you got in a conversation with? When I was waiting in line for Amon Amarth and Skeletonwitch one walked up to me and asked if I knew the good news and showed me a picture of the Virgin Mary lol. The existence of God is fundamentally unknowable. It has to be that way, otherwise it wouldn't very well be free will, would it? In life, you have only one choice that is guaranteed to you that you can make for yourself. You may choose to believe that God exists, or doesn't exist. If you could know one or the other, it wouldn't be free will and you would have no choice but to acknowledge Christ's divine Godhood. www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/grand.htmRead that. It's a chapter of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky that tells a parable that perfectly illustrates the concept of free will and how it exists to us and more importantly, why it exists to us. More or less, it's Kierkegaard's concept of leap-of-faith illustrated through the telling of a story.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 21, 2009 22:47:43 GMT -5
Well... actually, things are frequently simultaneously known and disbelieved. Evolution is the best example I can think of, although in truth, most of those who do not accept evolution as a likely fact are simply ignorant. However, there are some who do actually choose to trust Creationism, because accepting evolutionary theory would violate their religious beliefs. We humans are remarkably good at deciding to believe things we know are not true. We're actually very illogical, as a rule.
As for the existence of God, I read a lovely little quote a while ago that I can neither remember word-for-word nor find, unfortunately. However, I recall the gist of it. It was said by an atheist scientist to justify his atheism: In my experiments, I assume the absence of a God. That is, I neither control for the unpredictable actions of a God in relation to my experiments, nor do I take into account the possibility of a God when examining possible reasons for fluke data. Therefore, I must make the same assumption in my day-to-day life, or else throw my confidence in my methods out the window."
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2009 23:01:25 GMT -5
Evolution is disproven by this world's steady decay.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 21, 2009 23:04:49 GMT -5
It's just like old times- a mention of evolution swiftly turns the discussion to... evolution. Now it's up to me to resist the temptation to argue about it, and believe me, it's a strong temptation. But really, a passing reference to evolution is latched onto while the rest of my post is quite ignored? It was hardly the most important part, and a response to it is hardly topical.
|
|
|
Post by Atheo on Aug 21, 2009 23:23:46 GMT -5
Oh, not at all! I was just hoping for something a bit more to do with the question of God's existence. And I'd forgotten that you're too new here, probably, to understand my exasperation with your reply. Last time I was on here regularly, every single debate- without exception- turned into a debate about evolution. Uninformed, pointless debates, too, because (sorry for being so candid, guys) the Creationists were woefully ignorant and point-blank refused to educate themselves. By the way, you who I'm talking about, I mentioned you for the sake of explanation, not to respark those altogether ineffective and frustrating dialogues.\
By the way, what is your first language? I'd assumed it was English.
|
|
|
Post by Metzuda on Aug 22, 2009 21:04:41 GMT -5
... so... if faith is a gift form God, as the Scriptures tell us, then what should our conclusion be? If God exists, then only those whom He reveals Himself to can have the faith to believe in Him... which means He can't be proven... but He certainly can't be disproven. So both to have faith and to not have faith take belief in something unverifiable.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Aug 22, 2009 22:56:13 GMT -5
what the hell are you saying?
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Aug 22, 2009 23:06:27 GMT -5
its called christianese
|
|