Existence of God(s)

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:58 am

I often see how they claim to know of the existence or non-existence of god/gods/goddesses. Theists claim proof in faith, scriptures or spiritual experience. Atheists often say lack of evidence negates the claim but as trying to prove non-existence I see that as a claim to that needs evidence. A negation of a negative is a plus and a negation of the positive is a minus. A rational thinking human being wouldn't side with any side and wouldnt claim such biased statements as: "the burden of proof doesnt apply to atheists". Well atheists CLAIM the non-existence of deities, so there IS the burden of proof. If they said that they didn't need proof, then it is just opinion and not fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but never EVER should an opinion be rendered as a fact.

But where I am an agnostic theist, I also share the opinions of strong agnostics and apathetic agnostics. Strong agnosticism = "I do not know if deities exist or not, neither do you." Apathetic agnosticism = "No proof for or against, no one is right. But I could care less if they exist or not."

How do you feel about it?

PS: I dont want any "God doesnt exist is fact due to no evidence" because you cannot bring the evidence yourself against it as both sides are at the current time just opinions.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:23 am

Atheism is the lack of a belief, not the assertion that a deity doesn't exist.

I lean towards the "God doesn't exist" crowd, just like I say "Santa doesn't exist". The lack of evidence after investigation is enough for me to firmly say that they don't exist, without being pedantic.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:56 pm

I don't believe there is a vacuum cleaner in my room. Is the burden of proof on me to provide evidence of absence?

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:00 pm

The burden of proof is defined as…

The duty of proving a disputed charge; The duty of a party in a legal proceeding to prove an assertion of fact; it includes both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion.

I believe your understanding of the concept of burden of proof is slight and unrounded, as well as your understanding of atheism and it’s principles, versus theism and it’s principles. Regardless of what any individual says, faith is and always will be an opinion. Faith is defined as…

Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof; a strongly held belief or theory.

Atheism in general is not a faith, as it is simply a lack of faith. It is the principle of darkness and light; without light, darkness would not exist, thus darkness is simply a lack of light, it is subjective to light being in existence.

Atheists do not claim that there is no higher power, they simply choose not to believe in a higher power, on a general scale. There are two kinds of atheists, though, the ones I mentioned previously, and then there are those who simply say “There is no God”. There are also IDGAF-theists, who don’t care either way whether there is a god or is not a god.

Theists, however, believe that there is a god, or multiple gods/goddesses, etc. If anything the burden of proof lies with the theists, because they are claiming there is something- Atheists simply respond to that initial claim, and say “Hey, I don’t believe that”. They are not the ones who have burden of proof.

Modesty · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Modesty** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:10 pm

If you've ever watched the Atheist channel on youtube you'd understand Aniihya's point on Atheism. Atheism also encompasses a vast majority of people that are strongly against the idea of (a) God(s). In fact, Wikipedia's direct quote about it's definition is: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." So, yes, it can be an assertion that a deity doesn't exist.

If I can't grasp the concept of advanced calculus why should I presume to know anything about higher beings? All joking aside, I have faith in my morality and that's enough for me. I suppose, if I'd have to define myself, I'd be agnostic. I omit myself from believing or disbelieving, neutral and accepting of others' beliefs while I don't have any myself. While I'm quoting Wikipedia though, I liked this: "In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief."

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:44 pm

To clear things up a little, I'll give you guys the etymology of the words theist and atheist. Theist is a word that comes from the Greek word "Thea". It is translated to mean "god". Atheist again is Greek which means "without god". It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with god. Thus Theist claim that there is a god, while atheists claim that there is not a god. Both are making claims so both need to provide proof to their claim.
On a related note, agnosticism means "I do not know".

I did my essay question on my philosophy exam on different ways of proving and disproving the existence of god.

There are some very common ways to prove and disprove the existence of god. I'll go through a couple of them here for you. When it comes to the existence of god, we have faith, cosmology, ontology and religious experiences that can be used as an explanation.
Faith:

It is better to believe in god then not to believe in god.

Cosmology: Here's a link that can explain it better than I can. Don't worry, its a quick read.

Ontology: This is really just a play on words.
1 Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2 The idea of God exists in the mind.
3 A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4 If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5 We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6 Therefore, God exists.

Religious Experience: There are things in the world which cannot be explained. Some things may seem attributable to a "guardian angle". This is also known as the third man factor. People also have those out of body experiences when they almost die. There are many different examples of this.

Then we have the ways to disprove the existence of god. The ones that I usually hear are the problem of evil and god as a human creation.
The Problem of Evil:
1 If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2 If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3 If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4 If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5 Evil exists.
6 If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7 Therefore, God doesn't exist.

God as a Human Creation: We look at all the different ideas of what god is, based on different religions, scriptures, and so on. With so many different ideas of it, it is easy to believe that god was just a creation by humans in order to cope with our inevitable fate of death.

There are pitfalls to all these arguments, but I really didn't get into at all. Although because there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence, I would have to agree with Aniihya with this one. I'm agnostic and if people wish to believe in one or the other, I'm fine with that because in the end, one side does have to be right. Am I right?
Note: Almost everything here is taken from the internet as I believe it can explain things better than I can.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:05 pm

Mr_Doomed: At least we can agree on something.

As for "The Problem of Evil" that is mainly applicable for those monotheistic religions where their god is described as good and omnipotent with an evil rival while with polytheism it gets harder as there are good gods and bad gods that arent almighty but still are greater beings than humans.

As for those who grabbed their definitions of the burden of proof off sites such as "american atheists", "god is not real.com" or "the atheist forums": Try finding a definition that doesnt come from a completely biased source. The burden of proof applies to the one making the claim which would mean both sides as the one side claims for and the other claims against. If it was opinion (such as "I believe there is no god") then you wouldn't have the burden of proof. But many atheists claim that they know there isnt a god, they will have to supply sufficient proof to back their claim. It is as simple as that, even if you don't like it. Saying the bible is hokey is only proof against one religion/one deity. But you will need proof against all religions or deities if you want to make a point.

I say I believe in gods although I do not know if they exist or not. I do not care if they exist or not but I do not think anyone knows. I am just here to hear the opinions of others, hoping that no one will come and try to force their opinion on me.

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:44 pm

Just so it’s clear, my definition of burden of proof came from a legal dictionary, and then dictionary.com; all of my other non-quoted statements came from personal experience and the textbook definitions of such subjects.

@Aniihya, you obviously have issues with atheism and this discussion seems to be completely jaded against atheists or anything that has to do with them. What are your sources? What are your biases? Your judgments and statements seem completely skewed towards a theist mindset.

Most of my friends fall into the category of atheists, agnostics, or IDGAF-theists [and yes I realize that’s not a ‘real’ term, aforementioned friends created it to make it easier to explain]. None of them say outright that there is no God, most say that they do not believe in God, or they do not believe that there is a god, or gods, or anything of the sort. As I said before, regardless of individual’s thoughts on the matter, faith will always be opinion, lack of faith is also opinion, regardless of what an individual portrays their faith or lack thereof as.

There are two kinds of atheists, as far as I know:

A) ‘Hardcore Atheists’ who deny the existence of a deity or higher power entirely, basing their lack of belief in a spiritual Creator mostly on science and the like—These are not really atheists, they would be better described as Scientologists; people who believe in science/factual evidence as opposed to the supernatural nature of gods/deities.

B) ‘Lax Atheists’ who simply do not choose to believe in a deity or higher power, also rely on facts and logic, but do not necessarily go to the length of saying that there is absolutely no god/deity over the world.

One of these friends said once, “If God is real, then I hope he can understand why I didn’t believe in Him, and when I die I will ask for forgiveness. I’m not going to live a horrible life because I don’t believe in Him, and maybe that’ll be enough to please Him if He’s real. If He is real and He doesn’t accept me, I’m glad I didn’t believe in Him, because he’s not a loving God to begin with. And if He’s not real, nothing happens.”

Obviously this is in the comparison of monotheism to atheism, as polytheism is not popular around our area, but I think it’s a decent description of most atheists’ perspective- It’s not saying for fact, there is no god, it is saying they are choosing not to believe in a god, or gods.

Faith in general will never be fact; faith itself is defined as a strong belief in spiritual matters without factual evidence. If the burden of proof lies with anyone, it lies with theists, who clearly say “I believe there is a god/gods/goddesses/deity/deities.” Not with those who reject that claim.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:57 pm

I dont have issues with atheism, I have issues with militant atheism/the more radical part of strong atheism. Plus by my opinion atheists are just as equal as theists both in the correctness of their statements (so it varies strongly by opinions with more and less moderate people) as well as the right to voice their opinion. You know I am rather positioning myself in the space right between both groups. When it comes to existence of deities, I am a strong agnostic. So when atheists say that the non-existence of gods is fact while theists say the existence of gods is fact, both parties are wrong. Maybe is closer to truth when it comes to something uncertain than a yes or no. Not every question is a yes or no question. If you believe or think in the non-existence or existence of deities, it is far more correct than stating that your opinion would be fact. Do you follow?

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:27 pm

Aniihya wrote:I dont have issues with atheism, I have issues with militant atheism/the more radical part of strong atheism.

You never once mentioned militant atheism prior to this post, nor did you mention strong atheism or radical atheism. Therefore the message that was put out, to me at least, was that you had an issue with atheism in general. Saying things like

As for those who grabbed their definitions of the burden of proof off sites such as "american atheists", "god is not real.com" or "the atheist forums": Try finding a definition that doesnt come from a completely biased source.

clearly shows that you have bias against atheism in general.

You are also stating your own knowledge of burden of proof as fact, when it is obviously not entirely correct.

Aniihya wrote:Plus by my opinion atheists are just as equal as theists both in the correctness of their statements (so it varies strongly by opinions with more and less moderate people) as well as the right to voice their opinion.

That is also incorrect. Atheism is simply a response to theism, it was first noted (in the Bible, polytheistic documents, or secular History, take your pick) that their was a deity or higher power(s) in existence, Atheism came about later when people chose to say “I do not believe that”. Atheism itself is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief.

Aniihya wrote:You know I am rather positioning myself in the space right between both groups. When it comes to existence of deities, I am a strong agnostic. So when atheists say that the non-existence of gods is fact while theists say the existence of gods is fact, both parties are wrong.

I understand what an agnostic is, as some people classify me as an ‘agnostic Christian’, although really everyone is agnostic in the fact that there is no solid evidence that a deity or higher power(s) exist, and everyone is acting on FAITH. As one gospel song goes, “I don’t have to see it to believe it”. Anyone who says otherwise, about faith, is wrong by definition of the word and it’s practice. My main point was that theists and atheists [note: atheists means not-theist, another point towards atheism being a response, not an originator] are both simply of different opinions, not facts.

Aniihya wrote:Maybe is closer to truth when it comes to something uncertain than a yes or no. Not every question is a yes or no question. If you believe or think in the non-existence or existence of deities, it is far more correct than stating that your opinion would be fact. Do you follow?

I understand fully what that means, but that did not address the fact that you A) ignored the definition of ‘burden of proof’ and B) say that you don’t want others’ opinions shoved in your face, when you are inflicting your own opinion on others as if it is fact, with no contextual evidence or support for your opinion. The art of debate is forming an opinion, and supporting it with as much information as you can; not simply saying “This is what I think and that’s it”. :)

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:36 pm

First off, I am not trying to shove my opinions in your face. You must be severely misunderstanding me. Secondly, opinions do not need proof, claims need proof. An opinion could be true or false, but is based on the thought of a person.

About the "atheist issues" part: If you know the example sites, you would know that they are militant atheist sites. Not all websites say "militantatheistwannabeintellectuals.com" so you cannot just assume that these sites are hangouts where rational and moderate atheists blog and discuss.

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:46 pm

Aniihya wrote:First off, I am not trying to shove my opinions in your face. You must be severely misunderstanding me. Secondly, opinions do not need proof, claims need proof. An opinion could be true or false, but is based on the thought of a person.

Every opinion is formed based on some other material, one does not simply form an opinion out of thin air. Every opinion can have some support to it, and those that do not are generally deemed invalid for those who use logic. I suppose not all people use logic, though, so I can see why this [support for opinions] would be misconstrued as an optional element in a debate or argument [point].

I didn't say you were shoving your opinion in my face, specifically, the way that your are stating your opinion is just generally close-minded, as you are ignoring actual facts that support others opinions; even when they are not taken specifically from a certain site or source.

Aniihya wrote:About the "atheist issues" part: If you know the example sites, you would know that they are militant atheist sites. Not all websites say "militantatheistwannabeintellectuals.com" so you cannot just assume that these sites are hangouts where rational and moderate atheists blog and discuss.

I said you did not mention that your argument was specifically talking about radical, strong, or militant atheists, I honestly do not care about the websites. The fact that you suddenly changed your point from atheists in general to certain kinds of atheists is what I was getting at. If you're going to make an argument questioning a certain body of people, you should make clear to begin with that their are parameters for the subject of peoples.

I did not assume they were rational or moderate. You do not seem rational or moderate in your debate, at any rate, it seems you're jaded towards your specific belief. I'm going to 'drop out' of this discussion, because I don't see it gonig anywhere besides flamewartopia, and I'd rather quit while I'm not too far behind.

Ciao.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:00 pm

Though in this debate opinion is based on thought about the subject due to insufficient evidence on both sides. How do you know of something that is unknowable? And to call me close-minded and irrational makes you an hypocrite. I was here to hear opinions and not forceful criticism of how particular individuals think. And me being jaded towards my own belief could also be applied to you since you seem to try to justify antitheism as an only logical way of thinking. If you had just said that you were an atheist due to you lack of belief in deities, it would have been fine.

Renssaerene · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Renssaerene** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:03 pm

I am a Christian, :) I just choose to be objective about certain things.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:21 pm

Fine then. I do not care about the beliefs or philosophies of others as long as they do not harm anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own way of thinking as individuals.

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:33 pm

Aniihya wrote:Fine then. I do not care about the beliefs or philosophies of others as long as they do not harm anyone. Everyone is entitled to their own way of thinking as individuals.

So why create this thread?

Anyways, Mr_Doomed, your point is pretty Pascal's Wager, which is a fallacy as it doesn't account for all the gods that may exist, instead if just acts as if there's one specific god. YouTubing 'Betting on Infinity' pretty much debunks that entire argument.

Solo Wing Pixy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Solo Wing Pixy** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:10 pm

I always liked this quote, and it's relevant.

"Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more."

By providing proof of god, it ceases to be belief, and it becomes fact. Similarly, not having proof does not imply that something does not exist. It only shows that it may not exist and that we may just not have found it yet. So, to conclude, yes, you need to provide definitively for or against the existence of god if you want your respective side taken as fact. No, you do not need to prove anything to anyone to continue believing or not believing.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:24 pm

Strong atheism makes perfect sense if you apply the Law of Parsimony (aka Occam's Razor) to metaphysics. However, whether or not that's a valid move is the point of the thread "Can Science Explain Religion?" In that thread, I Called that attitude scientistic, a misuse of the scientific method perpetuated, by people who apply science to things outside its domain.

Mr_Doomed · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr_Doomed** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:43 pm

A solution to the problem that you talk about in Pascal's Wager is to believe in god. Not any one in particular. This may get around that problem that you seem to have.
Another problem Pascal's Wager is that to have faith for the soul purpose of going to heaven really isn't "good" faith at all.

In defense of Aniihya, I think what this thread is intended to do is to look at alternative ways of thinking, beyond the typical ones that we usually see (which are the ones that I brought up in my previous post).

There is this quote that I heard somewhere. I forget where (might have been my philosophy class), but I think it sums up my opinion on the entire subject. It is from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and in it, he said, "[W]hat can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence."

Jookia · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Jookia** on Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:34 pm

Almost all gods will spite you for not believing in them specifically. That's the problem with pascal's wager. So unless you pick the correct god out of the millions of them, you're going to have a bad afterlife.

Existence of God(s)

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Re: Existence of God(s)

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online