Spin//Do you believe in God?

[kdub83]

Yes, but not in the Christian/Islam sense of God

 

[NoMayo15]

To address those who say the rational choice is a higher power aka God not existing:

Just like there are no reasons for him existing there is also no reasons against him existing therefore him not existing is not the rational choice.

The actual rational choice is his existence being inconclusive.

Inconclusive, yet you believe?

-------
But to the point... No reasons for something existing is the ONLY reason one needs to be justified in not believing it exists.

There are no reasons for Santa existing
No reasons for the Easter Bunny
No reasons for a celestial teapot orbiting Mars that's too small for our telescopes to observe

If there is no reason to believe, then a reason NOT to believe is unnecessary. Yes, ultimately we don't know because it can't be confirmed, but the time to believe things is when it has been confirmed to be true. That's the position of atheism.

 

[Blackout]

Inconclusive, yet you believe?

-------
But to the point... No reasons for something existing is the ONLY reason one needs to be justified in not believing it exists.

There are no reasons for Santa existing
No reasons for the Easter Bunny
No reasons for a celestial teapot orbiting Mars that's too small for our telescopes to observe

If there is no reason to believe, then a reason NOT to believe is unnecessary. Yes, ultimately we don't know because it can't be confirmed, but the time to believe things is when it has been confirmed to be true. That's the position of atheism.

Inconclusive yet believe because my beleif doesn't conflict with the fact that its existence is inconclusive.

As long as a beleif doesn't go against establish fact then it can exist.

You can be justified for believing a higher power exists just as much as you being justified for not believing a higher power exists. One doesn't have more justification than the other.

That's something that atheists doesn't get. Not believing isn't any way more reasonable than believing because there are no reasons that exist to put it closer to a reasonable choice than believing.

I do find it funny how you compare the idea of a higher power to Santa clause and the Easter bunny when the idea of a higher power doesn't go against science as much as Santa clause or the eater bunny does if not at all.

 

[NoMayo15]

Inconclusive yet believe because my beleif doesn't conflict with the fact that its existence is inconclusive.

Yes, but what other things do you believe in thats existence is inconclusive?

That's something that atheists doesn't get. Not believing isn't any way more reasonable than believing because there are no reasons that exist to put it closer to a reasonable choice than believing.

No. It's not as reasonable to believe in miracles as it is to disbelieve in them. It's not as reasonable to believe in ghosts as it is not to believe in them. It's not as reasonable to believe in Big Foot as it is not to believe in it.

You don't need more justification. If a position isn't justified, then it doesn't make sense to think that it's true.

Theism and atheism aren't equally valid positions.

I do find it funny how you compare the idea of a higher power to Santa clause and the Easter bunny when the idea of a higher power doesn't go against science as much as Santa clause or the eater bunny does if not at all.

Mmmm... well, yes and no. One, the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral entity might be contradictory in and of itself. And if Santa and the Easter Bunny existed, they'd at least be physical entities that use magic in the real world. A higher power/ God on the other hand is non-physical, and supposedly exists in another realm outside our own. Science doesn't work under the assumption that such a realm exists. In this sense, Santa is somewhat more plausible, as he is at least a physical being.

 

[Blackout]

Yes, but what other things do you believe in thats existence is inconclusive?

No. It's not as reasonable to believe in miracles as it is to disbelieve in them. It's not as reasonable to believe in ghosts as it is not to believe in them. It's not as reasonable to believe in Big Foot as it is not to believe in it.

You don't need more justification. If a position isn't justified, then it doesn't make sense to think that it's true.

Theism and atheism aren't equally valid positions.

Mmmm... well, yes and no. One, the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral entity might be contradictory in and of itself. And if Santa and the Easter Bunny existed, they'd at least be physical entities that use magic in the real world. A higher power/ God on the other hand is non-physical, and supposedly exists in another realm outside our own. Science doesn't work under the assumption that such a realm exists. In this sense, Santa is somewhat more plausible, as he is at least a physical being.

Existance of other intelligent life out there is inconclusive but I beleive it.

See just by looking at your description of a higher power i can see where your confused. You limit the view of a higher power to the religious and smaller scale views and that's what keeps your views on theism limited.

Theism becomes just as reasonable as atheism in the case when the theist view looks at the creator as someone like us but in a grander scale. What would be considered miracles could be a creation process within the limits of this universe not yet understood by us. Don't forget that what can be described as a higher power can vary.

 

[NoMayo15]

Existance of other intelligent life out there is inconclusive but I beleive it.

See just by looking at your description of a higher power i can see where your confused. You limit the view of a higher power to the religious and smaller scale views and that's what keeps your views on theism limited.

Theism becomes just as reasonable as atheism in the case when the theist view looks at the creator as someone like us but in a grander scale. What would be considered miracles could be a creation process within the limits of this universe not yet understood by us. Don't forget that what can be described as a higher power can vary.

My description of a higher power only comes from believers who describes what they believe for me. Maybe you should go ahead an define what you mean by higher power or God?

Like us but in a grander scale? What does this mean? When have you ever seen a human like entity that's grander than, say, Earth?

I don't understand, on a molecular level, how an iPhone works. I don't know how exactly they are created. It doesn't mean I'm justified in thinking it's miraculous, and/or caused by a god/higher power.

 

[Blackout]

My description of a higher power only comes from believers who describes what they believe for me. Maybe you should go ahead an define what you mean by higher power or God?

Like us but in a grander scale? What does this mean? When have you ever seen a human like entity that's grander than, say, Earth?

I don't understand, on a molecular level, how an iPhone works. I don't know how exactly they are created. It doesn't mean I'm justified in thinking it's miraculous, and/or caused by a god/higher power.

I already defined it. Its a being like us who created or set in motion for creation on a bigger scale or could be out there interacting with the world in other ways.

Its a possibility. I haven't seen it but to go as far as saying it doesn't exist is not the default answer. The default answer is it being exclusive. We are not meant to dictate just discover.

The iPhone was created by a creator using methods that we as humans know about. The universe or certain things in the universe could of been created the same way. The only difference is that we don't know the methods. We believing that a higher power exists has the same amount if credibility as believing that a higher power doesn't exist because there is no reasoning for or against.

 

[Camammal]

I already defined it. Its a being like us who created or set in motion for creation on a bigger scale or could be out there interacting with the world in other ways.

Its a possibility. I haven't seen it but to go as far as saying it doesn't exist is not the default answer. The default answer is it being exclusive. We are not meant to dictate just discover.

The iPhone was created by a creator using methods that we as humans know about. The universe or certain things in the universe could of been created the same way. The only difference is that we don't know the methods. We believing that a higher power exists has the same amount if credibility as believing that a higher power doesn't exist because there is no reasoning for or against.

We have way more tangible evidence of how the universe was created than there is tangible evidence of a creator and as time goes by that gap gets even smaller. Its just a matter of time..its not like we don't already have proof that the earth is older than 4,000 years old. You can't make reasonable claims on something that is not reasonable...Im a theist btw

 

[Blackout]

We have way more tangible evidence of how the universe was created than there is tangible evidence of a creator and as time goes by that gap gets even smaller. Its just a matter of time..its not like we don't already have proof that the earth is older than 4,000 years old. You can't make reasonable claims on something that is not reasonable...Im a theist btw

Religion comes back up doesn't it but as I've said earlier religion isn't the only view of god.

Creation is only one part as well. There could still be a higher power interacting with the universe and even us in other aspects than creation. Then the simulation theory comes about and opens yet another possibility.

Plus the initial topic is whether saying god doesn't exist is more reasonable than saying god exists. Sure you can debunk certain small claims but if the general idea still stands in the same form after the debunk then you do nothing to the general idea itself. Don't go changing flag posts.

I initially asked for reasons for the idea of a higher power being false yet I haven't recieved any that can be considered credible.

 

[Camammal]

Religion comes back up doesn't it but as I've said earlier religion isn't the only view of god.

Creation is only one part as well. There could still be a higher power interacting with the universe and even us in other aspects than creation. Then the simulation theory comes about and opens yet another possibility.

Maybe we were not designed but just spawned from the fabrics of the universe? Maybe God was a gifted homo sapien or alien who spiritually ascended into omnipotence like Jesus? The universe is far too random and complex for our primitive understandings of it, thus why we have so many different interpretations of the same question.

 

[NoMayo15]

Religion comes back up doesn't it but as I've said earlier religion isn't the only view of god.

Creation is only one part as well. There could still be a higher power interacting with the universe and even us in other aspects than creation. Then the simulation theory comes about and opens yet another possibility.

If we went around believing in things because they were possible, that opens us up to believing all sorts of things (including things that aren't likely to be true). It's possible that I've taught my dog to type, and I'm simply instructing him on how to respond in this post. Does that mean it's reasonable for you to believe that's the case? Of course not. What you're doing would be like me saying "there's no evidence to disprove a dog isn't typing these words. So someone is just as justified in believing that as they are believing a human is actually the one typing". It's a ridiculous position because, although it's possible that someone may be able to train an animal to do such a thing, that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. It's much more likely that a human is doing all the typing.

 

[Blackout]

Maybe we were not designed but just spawned from the fabrics of the universe? Maybe God was a gifted homo sapien or alien who spiritually ascended into omnipotence like Jesus? The universe is far too random and complex for our primitive understandings of it, thus why we have so many different interpretations of the same question.

I'm already aware of all of the universe being random and complex.

I'm defending the possibility if a higher power and am also assessing the reasoning that may point toward a higher power not existing.

So far I have not seen any reasons that point toward a higher power not existing.

All I have seen is smaller claims being debunked yet the original idea remains unscathed.

 

[How Sway?]

I believe there is A higher being that created the universe. I think that people despite their religion believe in the same God also.

 

[Blackout]

If we went around believing in things because they were possible, that opens us up to believing all sorts of things (including things that aren't likely to be true). It's possible that I've taught my dog to type, and I'm simply instructing him on how to respond in this post. Does that mean it's reasonable for you to believe that's the case? Of course not. What you're doing would be like me saying "there's no evidence to disprove a dog isn't typing these words. So someone is just as justified in believing that as they are believing a human is actually the one typing". It's a ridiculous position because, although it's possible that someone may be able to train an animal to do such a thing, that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. It's much more likely that a human is doing all the typing.

You providing reasons to go against the existence of a dog typing your words. That would be relevant to this discussion if it was about that but this discussion is about the existence of a higher power and me asking for credible reasons supporting you believing that a higher power doesnt exist as the rational choice which I still haven't seen any.

For a choice to be the rational one reasons must be present to reinforce it as such and without reasons for the choice it cannot be defined as the rational choice.

 

[Camammal]

I'm already aware of all of the universe being random and complex.

I'm defending the possibility if a higher power and am also assessing the reasoning that may point toward a higher power not existing.

So far I have not seen any reasons that point toward a higher power not existing.

All I have seen is smaller claims being debunked yet the original idea remains unscathed.

Burden of proof, look that up breh. Someone can't prove that something does not exist if they never asserted the claim in the first place. That's like me asking you to give me reasons that vampires don't exist when i was the one who made it up. People don't believe a higher power because i cannot be seen, heard, felt or touched...its that simple, its not their job to give reasoning to its non-existence.