Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 50296 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1508 on: August 25, 2014, 12:35:50 PM »
I believe you have that wrong.  Thor is repeatedly introduced to you because You and the atheist both agree that he does not exist.  It is a common ground to show you that a mythical being once thought to be true, worshipped, who worked miracles, and millions prayed to him for thousands of years.  It is also a mythical being that there was not a shred of evidence for beyond the gaps in our knowledge.
Are YOU ready to support the fact that Thor is as real as Love?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 671
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1509 on: August 25, 2014, 08:22:24 PM »
I believe you have that wrong.  Thor is repeatedly introduced to you because You and the atheist both agree that he does not exist.  It is a common ground to show you that a mythical being once thought to be true, worshipped, who worked miracles, and millions prayed to him for thousands of years.  It is also a mythical being that there was not a shred of evidence for beyond the gaps in our knowledge.
Are YOU ready to support the fact that Thor is as real as Love?
I am. Try me.

$5.00 to ALS if you defeat me.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1510 on: August 25, 2014, 09:29:44 PM »
I believe you have that wrong.  Thor is repeatedly introduced to you because You and the atheist both agree that he does not exist.  It is a common ground to show you that a mythical being once thought to be true, worshipped, who worked miracles, and millions prayed to him for thousands of years.  It is also a mythical being that there was not a shred of evidence for beyond the gaps in our knowledge.
Are YOU ready to support the fact that Thor is as real as Love?

Lukvance, this "If Love is Real then God is Real" kindergarten pseudo-philosophic apologetics train wreck is so poorly thought out it's impossible to discuss the existence of a God with you. Every time I open this thread you're still riding this Love=Existence=God merry-go-round and we've gotten nowhere with you. It's time to get off. It's been 20+ pages of you completely failing to understand why your argument is a total non sequitur and I can't begin to count how many members have taken the time to point this out to you.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Online Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1511 on: August 26, 2014, 06:10:10 AM »
I believe you have that wrong.  Thor is repeatedly introduced to you because You and the atheist both agree that he does not exist.  It is a common ground to show you that a mythical being once thought to be true, worshipped, who worked miracles, and millions prayed to him for thousands of years.  It is also a mythical being that there was not a shred of evidence for beyond the gaps in our knowledge.
Are YOU ready to support the fact that Thor is as real as Love?
Lukvance,
You are doing it again! You are answering questions with questions.

Over 1,500 posts and 40,000 views. It is time for you to do two things:

1. Respond with a valid counter point to epidemic's observation that all you have argued is that because "love" is a word, then all the gods that have ever been worshipped are real.
2.Come up with something that, as Zankuu points out, moves us away from the discredited claim of yours that "Love is real therefore God is real."

You have 24 hours to do both of these. If you are judged to have failed in either or both, then I will close the thread.

You might like to remind yourself that
3. No amount of belief makes something real.
4. Quibbling about the terms and conditions of 1 and 2 above (i) will not count towards an answer (ii) will be deleted.

Thank you.
GB Mod.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1512 on: August 26, 2014, 01:26:11 PM »
Hello all, it has been asked from me.
1. Respond with a valid counter point to epidemic's observation that all you have argued is that because "love" is a word, then all the gods that have ever been worshiped are real.
- They are as real as love :) It doesn't mean they are as real as the chair you are sitting in. So basically epidemic's observation is correct if completed with the little fact that "reality" has many degrees.

2.Come up with something that, as Zankuu points out, moves us away from the discredited claim of yours that "Love is real therefore God is real."
Discredited? By what? I can't read anything of the kind. All I see is people disagreeing and when asked to support their given "reason" why they disagree, they change the subject.
It is not because someone claims "your claim have been discredited" that it is. You must discredit it first. I know it's a habits of yours to claim things like that and then ask to change the subject or stop whining when asked for proof. Nevertheless it doesn't change the fact. If something is really discredited, it shouldn't take long to resume the reason why it is discredited and support this summary with quotes. But if needed I can support the other claim proposed after reply #872.
"God is at least as real as Anger"
Meaning that there are at least the same amount of proof for the existence of Anger than the existence of God.
What you use to prove the existence of Anger and also be used to prove the existence of God.

3. No amount of belief makes something real.
- Great we agree. Do you guys still believe that my claim has been discredited? :)
4. Quibbling about the terms and conditions of 1 and 2 above (i) will not count towards an answer (ii) will be deleted.
- What is quibbling? Is it quibbling if you disagree with the answer given?
You're worth more than my time

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1513 on: August 26, 2014, 03:48:09 PM »
2.Come up with something that, as Zankuu points out, moves us away from the discredited claim of yours that "Love is real therefore God is real."
Discredited? By what? I can't read anything of the kind. All I see is people disagreeing and when asked to support their given "reason" why they disagree, they change the subject.

It's been explained to you that the word love describes an abstract emotion. Love is essentially a chemical reaction in our brains created by neurotransmitters and hormones. Once again, your argument that "If Love exists then God exists" becomes "If love is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions then God is an abstract idea that is stimulated in our brain by chemical reactions." Which says absolutely nothing about the actual existence of God. No one here is arguing that the Christian god doesn't exist as an idea. Everyone on this forum agrees that God can be an abstract idea. We aren't able to discuss the existence of God with you because you're interchangeably discussing God as an idea and God as a real being. I consider it dishonest because while you believe that God is a real being, you're only addressing God as an abstract idea and droning on about it.

It is not because someone claims "your claim have been discredited" that it is. You must discredit it first.
[...]
"God is at least as real as Anger"
Meaning that there are at least the same amount of proof for the existence of Anger than the existence of God.
What you use to prove the existence of Anger and also be used to prove the existence of God.

OK, so let me help you understand why your argument has been discredited. Your argument is a non sequitur argument (a really bad one the more I look at it). To be more specific it's called affirming the consequent.

Formal logic
Premise: C.
Premise: If A, then B.
Premise: A because C.
Conclusion: Therefore, B.

Your argument
Premise: It can be proven that anger is real and exists.
Premise: If God is at least as real as anger, then God exists.
Premise: God is at least as real as anger because it can be proven that anger is real and exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Similar argument
Premise: Squirrels exist.
Premise: If that squirrel approaching us exists, then it must be friendly.
Premise: That squirrel is approaching us is friendly because it exists.
Conclusion: The squirrel approaching us is friendly.

See why this argument is considered fallacious? Your second premise hinges on the idea that the third premise is true (which it isn't), and even if it were the conclusion could still be false. The squirrel could be approaching because it has rabies instead of being friendly, just like God could only exist as an abstract thought and not actually exist as a real being. It's a really, really weird and poorly formed argument for the existence of God as a real being. Your argument is a super weird and ill formed non sequitur.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2014, 03:54:50 PM by Zankuu »
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1514 on: August 26, 2014, 04:16:24 PM »
No one here is arguing that the Christian god doesn't exist as an idea. Everyone on this forum agrees that God can be an abstract idea.
We agree, you see. That is why this thread should have been closed since reply #870.
If we are to talk about the reality of God as an independent being we should move to another thread. Like this one for example : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

In your example for proving me wrong I believe you made a mistake. I don't say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God exists." I say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exist then God exist."
- It can be proven that anger is real and exists.
- It can be proven that something exist using "proofs" of it's existence. For example "Anger exist because I felt it"
- God is at least as real as anger because God gives as much proof of his existence as Anger does.
- If anger exist then God exist.

If we are to talk about the reality of God as an independent being we should move to another thread. Like this one for example : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

You're worth more than my time

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1515 on: August 26, 2014, 04:57:37 PM »
No one here is arguing that the Christian god doesn't exist as an idea. Everyone on this forum agrees that God can be an abstract idea.
If we are to talk about the reality of God as an independent being we should move to another thread. Like this one for example : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html

No we shouldn't move to that thread. Just look at your OP:

If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Of course he would exists as a separate entity - separate from human brains.

So you're saying if God exists as an abstract thought, then its necessary he exists as a real being. That thread is 43 pages of you dancing around that absurd claim without providing the slightest bit of evidence.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1516 on: August 26, 2014, 06:54:23 PM »
That thread is 43 pages of you dancing around that absurd claim without providing the slightest bit of evidence.
No it's not :) Read the last comments.
You're worth more than my time

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1517 on: August 26, 2014, 11:59:22 PM »
If god is an independent being, than anger is an independent being. I just saw anger walking down the street past my house. Therefore god was walking down the street past my house.

No, my bad. It was not god. It was actually stupidity.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1518 on: August 27, 2014, 12:21:58 PM »
In your example for proving me wrong I believe you made a mistake. I don't say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God exists." I say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exist then God exist."

That means the same thing. If you aren't able to understand that then we can't move forward.

Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1519 on: August 27, 2014, 12:43:00 PM »
In your example for proving me wrong I believe you made a mistake. I don't say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God exists." I say that " If God is at least as real as anger, then God is at least as real as anger." Or in other words "If anger exist then God exist."

That means the same thing. If you aren't able to understand that then we can't move forward.

The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.  Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1520 on: August 27, 2014, 01:01:23 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.  Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.

Your Clue-by-Four hits the nail on the head. Plus, this thread was about the probability of the Christian god existing as an influential being. Luk is arguing the probability of God existing as an abstract idea. This changes the focus of the thread and doesn't add anything meaningful to it. God existing as a thought in a human brain does not increase God's probability of existing as a being. I wonder if he understands that.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1521 on: August 27, 2014, 01:32:57 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.  Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.

Your Clue-by-Four hits the nail on the head. Plus, this thread was about the probability of the Christian god existing as an influential being. Luk is arguing the probability of God existing as an abstract idea. This changes the focus of the thread and doesn't add anything meaningful to it. God existing as a thought in a human brain does not increase God's probability of existing as a being. I wonder if he understands that.
I do understand that. This is why since reply #872 I asked that this thread was closed. What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing supporting your following claim : "this thread was about the probability of the Christian god existing as an influential being".
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1522 on: August 27, 2014, 01:35:07 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.
Why? That's the question I asked you about Love or about Anger.

Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.
Have you ask every living being? Or is it just you unsupported opinion?
You're worth more than my time

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1523 on: August 27, 2014, 01:50:52 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.
Why? That's the question I asked you about Love or about Anger.

If 5,000,000 people a year visited that cathedral of hate, Fox News, and prayed for a spontaneous healing, what percentage do you think would be healed? Would it be real high, like at Lourdes (You know, with a miracle rate of .00000035%) or somewhat smaller?

If not the same, why do you equate them?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2207
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1524 on: August 27, 2014, 02:35:45 PM »

Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.
Have you ask every living being? Or is it just you unsupported opinion?

We on this board aren't evidence enough? Or are we as imaginary as your god?

Or, are you just that stupid?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2111
  • Darwins +132/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1525 on: August 27, 2014, 02:49:05 PM »
What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing supporting your following claim : "this thread was about the probability of the Christian god existing as an influential being".

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The OP discusses God as an actual being and fulfilling Biblical prophecies. Not a single person in that thread discussed God as an abstract idea until you got involved in Reply #663.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1526 on: August 27, 2014, 04:05:21 PM »
Have you ask every living being? Or is it just you unsupported opinion?

*ahem* M. Lukvance, comprendez-vous le mot 'universel'?

My lack of belief, and inability to perceive your god at all -- Let alone as keenly as I perceive My own anger, or the anger of others -- is all the support I will ever need for My assertion that your god-concept is not universal.  It only takes one exception to destroy universality, and you're looking at it right here.

The fact that there are millions of atheists worldwide, and billions who believe in a different god-concept than yours, is even more damning to your attempt to make your alleged god an integral part of the lives of every human being on this planet.  All you've done is painted it into a corner.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1527 on: August 27, 2014, 04:21:52 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.  Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.

I agree.  Anger is a description of an emotion typically associated with specific behavior and/or feelings.  A god or gods are supposed to be descriptions of something other than a mere concept.  What this means is that one is describing something that exists in reality, while the other describes something that cannot has not been demonstrated to exist in reality.  As descriptions, they are both equally real (but so is any other description), what they describe however is not equally real.

So Indeed, this alleged god is not as real as anger, well at least not until the alleged god can be demonstrated to actually be as real as anger.

It is so very true that it is the idea of a god that people make real in their own minds.  It is exactly like role playing.  In role playing, people immerse themselves into the fantasy realm and simulate the fantasy in their minds, and depending on how good at (or interested in) doing this, it can be a very fun experience.   When the high elf priestess is slain by orcs, if you are sufficiently immersed, then you actually feel sadness for the high elf priestess and you actually feel anger for the orcs and want to seek revenge by slaying the orcs.  You feel excitement when you set out on your quest to track down the orcs, and when you confront a dragon on your path you feel fear as the dragon can easily derail your quest.  At the end of the day after having slain the dragon and captured the orcs instead of just killing them (because you’re a warrior of justice and peace) you feel happy.

Theists are role players, simulating a god in their minds and it is that simulation which elicits various emotions, just as a person simulating a fantasy adventure with elves, orcs and dragons does.  The key difference between a theist and a fantasy role player is that most fantasy role players (at least all those that I’ve met) know they are role playing and that what they are simulating does not actually represent reality.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 04:29:13 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1528 on: August 27, 2014, 06:44:32 PM »
^^^^I once made a similar analogy to interacting with Trekkies at conventions back in the day.

For three days at the conference center, the Star Trek universe was real. Spock was real, Klingons were real, Starfleet was real. People argued over what deck Kirk's quarters were on and when McCoy got married and how many languages Uhura spoke as earnestly as if they were in the United Nations General Assembly.

But when the con was over, we all went back to our real lives and Star Trek was no longer real. What I find intriguing is that many religious treat their religion as a convention--it is real only on Sunday when they join with the other fans, and the rest of the week they act like everyone else.

People who stay in the Star Trek universe all the time, who wear Vulcan ears to work, who actually speak Klingon or have memorized entire episodes ("Get a life!") are considered kinda crazy, even by other fans.

People who stay in the "god is watching us" mode all the time, who really do give away all their belongings and stand on the street preaching about the endtimes are also considered kinda crazy, even by other believers.

Recently saw Guardians of the Galaxy with the kid. Cute movie, lots of stuff blowing up around our wisecracking heroes. On our way in we had to pass by a young man who stood in front of the place yelling about sinful movies, false religions, the evils of facebook and youtube, Jesus is the way, etc. (He specifically mentioned JW's as one of the groups teaching false doctrines.) It was kind of surreal.

I asked my daughter if she thought he would convince anyone to change their behavior by yelling at people like that. She replied, no, and wondered why god made people yell when it just turned people off. And she added that he was only trying to convince himself, since he was of the age to be most tempted by facebook, youtube and the sinful movies.

Insight from a teen.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1284
  • Darwins +93/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1529 on: August 28, 2014, 08:42:02 AM »
<snip>
I agree.  Anger is a description of an emotion typically associated with specific behavior and/or feelings.  A god or gods are supposed to be descriptions of something other than a mere concept. 

Yeah exactly. Anger isn't actually something that is real, it is a best-fit description. How fast must your heart beat for you to be angry rather then irritated, what shade of redness in the face differentiates anger from annoyance?
It is a word, an approximate tool to describe something abstract. This being the case it means different things to different people.

God, however is used to describe something different. It is used to describe an identifiable presence, not an approximation of an abstract.

So no Luk, just because words can vaguely convey a subjective experience doesn't mean that a specific word does indicate an established presence.

I'm getting really angry about your misunderstanding now, or slightly peeved, or maybe I'm just indifferent.

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1530 on: August 28, 2014, 04:13:42 PM »
The question is, is this alleged god as real as anger?  I don't think so.
Why? That's the question I asked you about Love or about Anger.

If 5,000,000 people a year visited that cathedral of hate, Fox News, and prayed for a spontaneous healing, what percentage do you think would be healed? Would it be real high, like at Lourdes (You know, with a miracle rate of .00000035%) or somewhat smaller?

If not the same, why do you equate them?
Are you playing stupid? or did you really use the proof of the existence of God as a external being and compare it to hate? That's non sense, hate is not a being.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1531 on: August 28, 2014, 04:14:50 PM »

Perhaps the idea of the god is as real as anger to some people, but it is not universally as real.  Hence, it is not real enough to be a meaningful part of all humans' lives.
Have you ask every living being? Or is it just you unsupported opinion?

We on this board aren't evidence enough? Or are we as imaginary as your god?

Or, are you just that stupid?
I'm not stupid. I'm not the one thinking that the world evolve only around this little forum :)
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1532 on: August 28, 2014, 04:19:07 PM »
What you don't seem to understand is that there is nothing supporting your following claim : "this thread was about the probability of the Christian god existing as an influential being".

Are you being purposefully obtuse? The OP discusses God as an actual being and fulfilling Biblical prophecies. Not a single person in that thread discussed God as an abstract idea until you got involved in Reply #663.
I don't see it that way. Looking it that way would be changing the meaning of the words of the op or the question itself.
As long as I am concerned the existence of God has been demonstrated as a high probability because of all the clues that you can find around you. Clues that are similar in nature than the one you use to prove the existence of Hate or Love.
Anybody who wish to know more about the existence of God outside our bodies should go to that thread : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26874.0.html
And we should close this one.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1533 on: August 28, 2014, 04:21:04 PM »
Have you ask every living being? Or is it just you unsupported opinion?
*ahem* M. Lukvance, comprendez-vous le mot 'universel'?
My lack of belief, and inability to perceive your god at all -- Let alone as keenly as I perceive My own anger, or the anger of others -- is all the support I will ever need for My assertion that your god-concept is not universal.  It only takes one exception to destroy universality, and you're looking at it right here.

The fact that there are millions of atheists worldwide, and billions who believe in a different god-concept than yours, is even more damning to your attempt to make your alleged god an integral part of the lives of every human being on this planet.  All you've done is painted it into a corner.
You are claiming that hate is universal. That every living being on earth believe in hate or experienced hate like you did. That is absolutely false and that is why your argument fails.
You're worth more than my time

Offline Lukvance

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 1982
  • Darwins +13/-258
  • Gender: Male
  • Catholic
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1534 on: August 28, 2014, 04:28:08 PM »
<snip>
I agree.  Anger is a description of an emotion typically associated with specific behavior and/or feelings.  A god or gods are supposed to be descriptions of something other than a mere concept. 

Yeah exactly. Anger isn't actually something that is real, it is a best-fit description. How fast must your heart beat for you to be angry rather then irritated, what shade of redness in the face differentiates anger from annoyance?
It is a word, an approximate tool to describe something abstract. This being the case it means different things to different people.

God, however is used to describe something different. It is used to describe an identifiable presence, not an approximation of an abstract.

So no Luk, just because words can vaguely convey a subjective experience doesn't mean that a specific word does indicate an established presence.

I'm getting really angry about your misunderstanding now, or slightly peeved, or maybe I'm just indifferent.
You are stating two things
One :  Anger isn't actually something that is real
Two : God [...] is used to describe something different
These two things are not opposite to each other. If you want to prove to me that anger and God are not real you should compare 2 comprable things.
For example
I know that Anger exist because I feel it in my chest. Even if there are people out there who do not feel Anger in their chest.
Just like I know that God exist because I feel it in my chest.
You're worth more than my time

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1535 on: August 28, 2014, 04:33:49 PM »
I know that Anger exist because I feel it in my chest. Even if there are people out there who do not feel Anger in their chest.
Just like I know that God exist because I feel it in my chest.

You may want to get checked out by a cardiologist. That shit ain't normal.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #1536 on: August 28, 2014, 05:16:19 PM »
You are stating two things
One :  Anger isn't actually something that is real
Two : God [...] is used to describe something different

No, we are saying that the word “anger” is used to describe something which can be demonstrated as real.  The word “God” is being used to describe something which has not been demonstrated as real.

You seem to think that it is relevant that they are both words used to describe something.  It isn’t.  There are many words used to describe things, not all of the things being described are actually real.

These two things are not opposite to each other. If you want to prove to me that anger and God are not real you should compare 2 comprable things.

Why would I try to prove that anger is not real when there is evidence that what we describe as “anger” is indeed real.  You however are asking me to prove a negative, which I cannot do.  If you can demonstrate that it is possible to prove a negative, then I will be forced to correct my mistake of thinking it is impossible to prove a negative.

If you would like to demonstrate the existence of your god, then by all means, proceed in doing so instead of playing word games.

For example
I know that Anger exist because I feel it in my chest. Even if there are people out there who do not feel Anger in their chest.
Just like I know that God exist because I feel it in my chest.

I don’t get it, are you saying the word “God” describes an emotion or a chest condition (perhaps heart, lung or rib related)?  I thought “God” created the universe?  Did an emotion/chest condition create the universe?
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks