Spin//Do you believe in God?

[Blackout]

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.

This is about god not existing being defined as the rational choice. Some people are defining the choice of god not existing as the rational choice and I am demanding to see the credible reasons that makes it the rational choice.

I'm saying that the rational choice is "god existing is inconclusive." Anything else even the atheist stance can't be defined as the rational choice and I am also saying that the general atheists stance is no more reasonable than the theist stance.

How you got to the burden of proof is beyond me.

 

[Broke Wave]

I believe in the Creator of all things, Allah (swt) and his Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), his holy Qu'ran, and the Prophets and message who came before.

 

[sanityovar8ted]

Yes I do.

 

[OPTiMO]

Yeah, but im not too sure if he/she/it is what we have in mind



I guess I just believe there is some sort of creator. If he gives a fukk and is looking out for us like that is another subject. But I do believe in a higher power.

 

[NoMayo15]

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 is 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 your decision it cannot be the rational choice.

I bring up these analogies because you don't seem to understand how knowledge is constructed. It also relates because you seem to think as long as an idea is logically possible, it's just as likely to be true as it is false. That's not the case.

I've already given the reasons not believing makes more sense. One, there is no demonstrable, objective evidence for such an entity, nor a realm for a "greater human" to even exist. Two, every argument for such a being fails and has been debunked throughout history. Three, now, with modern science, we actually know some of the REAL answers to some questions that were once answered by appeals to this higher power.

Honestly, the first reason is the only one you need because if there isn't evidence that something is likely to be true, not thinking it's true is default position until evidence arises that suggests otherwise.

But with this, the possibility of a higher power still exists. Why? You can't prove the nonexistence of something. You can't disprove Big Foot, you can't disprove leprechauns. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe in these things! The ONLY time it's reasonable to believe in the existence of something is if there is objective evidence that suggests that it manifests in reality.

 

[Keep_It_Hip_Hop_Fam]

Yes

But his existence is beyond human logic

 

[Camammal]

This is about god not existing being defined as the rational choice. Some people are defining the choice of god not existing as the rational choice and I am demanding to see the credible reasons that makes it the rational choice.

I'm saying that the rational choice is god existing is inconclusive. Anything else can't be defined as the rational choice.

How you got to the burden of proof is beyond me.

It cannot be seen, heard, smelled, felt, touched, measured or weighed. What other reasons do you need? this thread is about the validity of fictional books, what makes the bible or any of it contents non-fiction?

 

[NoMayo15]

This is about god not existing being defined as the rational choice. Some people are defining the choice of god not existing as the rational choice and I am demanding to see the credible reasons that makes it the rational choice.

I'm saying that the rational choice is "god existing is inconclusive." Anything else even the atheist stance can't be defined as the rational choice and I am also saying that the general atheists stance is no more reasonable than the theist stance.

How you got to the burden of proof is beyond me.

Well, not exactly. I'm arguing that the rational choice is not believing that a god exists ... not necessarily that it's rational to believe that no god(s) exist. There is a difference.

 

[Blackout]

I bring up these analogies because you don't seem to understand how knowledge is constructed. It also relates because you seem to think as long as an idea is logically possible, it's just as likely to be true as it is false. That's not the case.

I've already given the reasons not believing makes more sense. One, there is no demonstrable, objective evidence for such an entity, nor a realm for a "greater human" to even exist. Two, every argument for such a being fails and has been debunked throughout history. Three, now, with modern science, we actually know some of the REAL answers to some questions that were once answered by appeals to this higher power.

Honestly, the first reason is the only one you need because if there isn't evidence that something is likely to be true, not thinking it's true is default position until evidence arises that suggests otherwise.

But with this, the possibility of a higher power still exists. Why? You can't prove the nonexistence of something. You can't disprove Big Foot, you can't disprove leprechauns. That doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe in these things! The ONLY time it's reasonable to believe in the existence of something is if there is objective evidence that suggests that it manifests in reality.

One
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Two
Smaller claims being fails doesn't effect the general idea. A higher power could still exist despite some views being debunked becuase the root still stand so other views are still there.

Again I'm not saying that believing that god exists is reasonable. I am saying that believing that god doesn't exist isn't reasonable either.

 

[Blackout]

It cannot be seen, heard, smelled, felt, touched, measured or weighed. What other reasons do you need? this thread is about the validity of fictional books, what makes the bible or any of it contents non-fiction?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I need a reason that supports god not existing for it to be rational and even more so for it to be the rational choice.

All those are reasons for god existence being inconclusive yet you've failed to provide reasons for god not existing.

Well, not exactly. I'm arguing that the rational choice is not believing that a god exists ... not necessarily that it's rational to believe that no god(s) exist. There is a difference.

Well it can't be the rational choice when there is a choice to believe that god existence is inconclusive. God being inconclusive is the rational choice not god not existing because there are reasons for god existence being inconclusive and not for god not existing.

 

[NoMayo15]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Okay, I didn't say it was. But it doesn't help your case. If you say something affects or affected our universe, there should be some way to measure that source. If there isn't, then it def. hurts your case.

Smaller claims being fails doesn't effect the general idea. A higher power could still exist despite some views being debunked becuase the root still stand so other views are still there.

What do you mean, smaller claims? If there's no physical evidence for a god, and you can't make a sound logical argument for a god, what reason is there to believe that a god exists? If no good reasons exist, it only makes sense to not believe in it.

Again I'm not saying that believing that god exists is reasonable. I am saying that believing that god doesn't exist isn't reasonable either.

So why on Earth do you believe? You said you also believe in the after life right? Why?

 

[SYDNEY AMBROSE]

Yes I Do.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

There is no evidence that proves the existence of God. And if it were real, I doubt it would be anything like the one contained within most holy books today.

 

[Blackout]

Okay, I didn't say it was. But it doesn't help your case. If you say something affects or affected our universe, there should be some way to measure that source. If there isn't, then it def. hurts your case.

What do you mean, smaller claims? If there's no physical evidence for a god, and you can't make a sound logical argument for a god, what reason is there to believe that a god exists? If no good reasons exist, it only makes sense to not believe in it.

So why on Earth do you believe? You said you also believe in the after life right? Why?

My case is that there are reasons for god existence being inconclusive but none for god not existing.

Where did I say that there are reasons for god existing? Where did i say that god existing is the rational choice?

Are you even reading my posts?

If no good reasons exist it only makes sense to leave it as inconclusive. Not believing it is a personal choice not backed up by any reasoning. All reasons provided here supports god existence as inconclusive therefor it is the rational choice.

 

[Camammal]

you can literally assert that phrase into anything.. i gave you 6 rational reasons to why people would think that way.