Do you believe in God?

[rono_thomas]

We die and cease to exist. Just like we've been dead for billions of years before becoming concious, so we'll be dead after death.

I feel perfectly comfortable with that.

Would any of the usual debaters like to elaborate scientifically on the word bolded above?

A religion doesn't need to say that to cause harm.

Neither does a person having an immoral opinion on any subject - It becomes a problem during a persons interpretation of a statement and then used immorally, illegally or in any other negative way.

Is a sharp knife used for cutting veg or a weapon?

 

[Carbonox]

Just like we've been dead for billions of years before becoming concious, so we'll be dead after death.

False. One can't be dead if they haven't existed in the first place.

 

[Jet Badger]

False. One can't be dead if they haven't existed in the first place.

The only requirement to being dead is not being alive. The term being broadly and domestically used, I don't see the point in picking on it.

 

[Liquid]

Just because someone believes something doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any evidence for their belief. There is plenty of historical evidence for events in the Bible as a whole.

Which events and what evidence?

The story of creation is lacking in this evidence compared to other parts of the Bible, but that doesn't mean it is false.

Abiogenesis would have something to say about that.

 

[rono_thomas]

The only requirement to being dead is not being alive. The term being broadly and domestically used, I don't see the point in picking on it.

The only requirement for dead is to have been alive .

A stone is never dead but yet also is not alive.

 

[Imari]

Just because someone believes something doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any evidence for their belief.

If there's evidence then you don't need to believe, you can see.

I don't need to believe that the sun rose yesterday, there's mountains of data and records telling me that it did.

That's the difference. Belief is what happens when there's not a good reason to think something, but you do it anyway.

Would any of the usual debaters like to elaborate scientifically on the word bolded above?

"I think therefore I am" is an axiom and always will be an axiom.

The self is defined as the thing that thinks. If you don't think, you're not you.

The only requirement for dead is to have been alive .

Depending on usage, not really. Inanimate matter is often referred to as dead matter. Infertile soil can be called dead soil.

There are plenty of examples for usage of the word "dead" being synonymous with "not alive". Given that we don't really have a word for pre-birth, I don't see the problem with using dead.

Unless you'd like to suggest another word that could be used for that concept instead?

 

[Carbonox]

Depending on usage, not really. Inanimate matter is often referred to as dead matter. Infertile soil can be called dead soil.

There are plenty of examples for usage of the word "dead" being synonymous with "not alive". Given that we don't really have a word for pre-birth, I don't see the problem with using dead.

Well, here's an example that makes me think use of the word 'dead' in that case is illogical:

Basically, imagine a future person that doesn't yet exist - for instance a kid that a knocked up relative or friend is currently expecting. Or, actually, since I don't know at which point fetuses start to show signs of life, let's make it a kid that is being planned by a couple, but not conceived yet. How can this future person be considered dead at this very moment, when they have never existed in the past, and will only do in the future?

Unless you'd like to suggest another word that could be used for that concept instead?

Nonexistent?

 

[Imari]

Nonexistent?

Except that the particular world view that is being described is one in which the "person" is implied to be eternal. The use of the phrase "before becoming conscious" is the giveaway.

So, if you assume that in some fashion the "person" always exists, but is only alive as a person that we would recognise for a short period of time, then how do you describe their state before they were born? After death is easy, they're dead. Pre-birth is tougher, but one might assume that the state was identical to that after death, and should be described the same way.

Again, if you've got a better word then have at it, but it needs to accurately describe the world view that is being put forward.

 

[rono_thomas]

Inanimate matter is often referred to as dead matter. Infertile soil can be called dead soil.

There are plenty of examples for usage of the word "dead" being synonymous with "not alive". Given that we don't really have a word for pre-birth, I don't see the problem with using dead.

Unless you'd like to suggest another word that could be used for that concept instead?

Inanimate - without life as opposed to as animate - with life, Likewise the word infertile is pretty similar.

Have no problem with using the word like that.

However for using the word dead to describe pre-birth is suggesting a different cycle of events and we cant be dead - alive - dead.

 

[Jet Badger]

Well, here's an example that makes me think use of the word 'dead' in that case is illogical:

Basically, imagine a future person that doesn't yet exist - for instance a kid that a knocked up relative or friend is currently expecting. Or, actually, since I don't know at which point fetuses start to show signs of life, let's make it a kid that is being planned by a couple, but not conceived yet. How can this future person be considered dead at this very moment, when they have never existed in the past, and will only do in the future?

In that case the fetus is not dead and not considered dead for the sole reason because it is indeed alive.

However for using the word dead to describe pre-birth is suggesting a different cycle of events and we cant be dead - alive - dead.

Why not? The word, meaning "not alive, inanimate" describes the condition of being "not alive, inanimate" pretty well.

 

[rono_thomas]

Except that the particular world view that is being described is one in which the "person" is implied to be eternal. The use of the phrase "before becoming conscious" is the giveaway.

So, if you assume that in some fashion the "person" always exists, but is only alive as a person that we would recognise for a short period of time, then how do you describe their state before they were born? After death is easy, they're dead. Pre-birth is tougher, but one might assume that the state was identical to that after death, and should be described the same way.

Again, if you've got a better word then have at it, but it needs to accurately describe the world view that is being put forward.

That would only work if couple A + B produced child C,

But if couple A + B did not have child C because of marital issues and then A had a child with Z and produced child Y we can no longer call child C as dead before they became alive.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in this case something cant be dead before it is conceptualised?

So future person(s) cant be dead.

To say my consciousness is the same after death as before death is also an illogical thing to say why did I not have memories at birth - the same as I did as when I will die? What I'm saying here is that before and after cant therefore be the same nor called the same without confusion as to what I mentioned before the cycle of events, unless you believe in reincarnation?

I have no objection to pre-birth or pre-consciousness or pre-life or pre-animate or before I was here. To say I was dead before I was alive, To say we were dead before we were alive does not work.


In that case the fetus is not dead and not considered dead for the sole reason because it is indeed alive.

I think each country has its own definition on this which their laws define when a fetus is classed as alive. I am 99% certain that no country considers a fetus from conception as being alive. I maybe wrong as I've not researched all countries just European. This is directly linked to what is considered "ok" to abort a baby.

 

[Imari]

However for using the word dead to describe pre-birth is suggesting a different cycle of events and we cant be dead - alive - dead.

Why not?

That would only work if couple A + B produced child C,

But if couple A + B did not have child C because of marital issues and then A had a child with Z and produced child Y we can no longer call child C as dead before they became alive.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in this case something cant be dead before it is conceptualised?

So future person(s) cant be dead.

You're completely missing the point of eternal "people".

Think of it as souls if it makes it easier.

To say my consciousness is the same after death as before death is also an illogical thing to say why did I not have memories at birth - the same as I did as when I will die?

Do you have memories when you're dead? Did you have memories before you were born?

What's the difference?

I have no objection to pre-birth or pre-consciousness or pre-life or pre-animate or before I was here. To say I was dead before I was alive, To say we were dead before we were alive does not work.

How you can understand the concept of "dead" as "not alive" and yet not understand this baffles me.

Why you've decided to nit pick a word when you don't have an alternative baffles me even more. The word isn't important; understanding the concept it. If "dead" is the word that gets you to understand the concept, it's the right word. If you've got a better one, share it.

 

[JMoney]

@JMoney689, there is a wealth of observational evidence which contradicts the story of creation, and it is that abundance of observation which renders it false.

Who's observation? Recorded history only goes back about as far as when Christians believe the Earth was made. I've always found it interesting that scientists say humans existed for tens of thousands of years but only just figured out agriculture 10,000 years ago, and written language shortly after. What caused humans to suddenly make this revolutionary discovery?

Just as the story of Noah's Flood conflicts with reality and possibility, and omits things that God didn't think we needed to know, such as the existence of the platypus.

There actually is some evidence, albeit minimal, for Noah's flood, or at least a flood large enough to cover the known world at the time: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

To fall back on the evasion that we can't understand God because he's more intelligent than you or I is a dangerous slippery slope. It's not just an "excuse", it is dangerous. It leads to potential actions such as murdering sabbath-workers "in the name of God". The vast majority of our society is equipped with a moral view which says that murdering sabbath-workers is wrong. It is just not nice. However, if you push the view that God's word overrides morality for reasons we cannot understand, eventually you'll find some people for whom such behavior resonates and people will die. For God. If you think this is absurd and just not possible, google Charlie Hebdo.

I'm talking about the information included or not included in the Bible. You are talking about God's morality and Islamic extremists. Let's get on the same page.

When you die, you're dead. As far as you're concerned, nothing happens anymore. That's what the evidence says.

Evidence? There is no evidence at all to support that position. How can we have evidence that our existences end at death if our existences end?

If there's evidence then you don't need to believe, you can see.

I don't need to believe that the sun rose yesterday, there's mountains of data and records telling me that it did.

That's the difference. Belief is what happens when there's not a good reason to think something, but you do it anyway.

I can believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because nobody knows for sure who killed him. There is evidence to support that Oswald killed JFK, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm it, to prove it. When discussing the existence of God it's the same deal- there is evidence to support His existence as well as evidence to support that He doesn't exist, but there isn't enough evidence to prove either position. Because it can't be proven that God doesn't exist, we can correctly believe that He does. There is evidence to prove that the sun rose yesterday, and therefore you can't correctly believe that it didn't.

 

[rono_thomas]

Why not?

Because your description suggests that you believe in reincarnation - do you?

 

[Exorcet]

Neither does a person having an immoral opinion on any subject - It becomes a problem during a persons interpretation of a statement and then used immorally, illegally or in any other negative way.

Is a sharp knife used for cutting veg or a weapon?

It is true that a religion saying X or Y isn't hurting anyone is no one carries out X or Y. However there are religious people who do carry out what their religion says. Going back to my example, religion certainly plays a part in the immoral denial of rights for gay people even when a religion doesn't say to directly kill them. Just below that level is the idea sometimes perpetuated that homosexuals are lesser people or inherently evil. While people can believe what they want, such beliefs aren't really accurate or beneficial.

Who's observation?

Could be many people, even you. Observation doesn't mean you need to see what you're talking about as it happened. It's about using facts to set constraints. If you walk into your kitchen only to find that it's much colder than usual and the fridge open, there's a good chance that the reason for that is because the fridge was left open. You may not have seen when it opened or who opened, but you can still use logic to come up with a very plausible cause for what you're seeing.

Recorded history only goes back about as far as when Christians believe the Earth was made. I've always found it interesting that scientists say humans existed for tens of thousands of years but only just figured out agriculture 10,000 years ago, and written language shortly after. What caused humans to suddenly make this revolutionary discovery?

Christians believe various things from the factually supported 4.5 billion year age to 6000 years (and possible even more extreme values), and the latter is still nearly 50% off if you want to say that the Earth is ~10,000 years old.

As far as recorded history goes, that kind of requires language to even exist. No surprise if the two coincide. Your point isn't really strong at all though as language and agriculture are far from the only major human turning points. Tools and art go back much further than history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

Apparently the oldest paintings are 35,000 + years old. Not very consistent with a 6-10 thousand year old planet.

There actually is some evidence, albeit minimal, for Noah's flood, or at least a flood large enough to cover the known world at the time: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

A local flood is a very different story, and a good explanation for the Bible myth. Whether or not there was a flood, the huge gaps in the Bible story remain and need to be explained, especially if an all knowing God is involved.

Evidence?

There is no evidence at all to support that position. How can we have evidence that our existences end at death if our existences end?

We're physical beings. Damage the physical matter that we're made of and effects are readily apparently. When the biological machinery stops working, so do we.

 

[mistersafeway]

Who's observation? Recorded history only goes back about as far as when Christians believe the Earth was made. I've always found it interesting that scientists say humans existed for tens of thousands of years but only just figured out agriculture 10,000 years ago, and written language shortly after. What caused humans to suddenly make this revolutionary discovery?

I sense an imminent "were you there?" argument.

There actually is some evidence, albeit minimal, for Noah's flood, or at least a flood large enough to cover the known world at the time: http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scientific_evidence_for_a_worldwide_flood.htm

The known world to who? Oh yeah, some very primitive people who were around a long while before Judaism was even considered. The only floods there is any evidence for were tiny things.

Just because someone believes something doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any evidence for their belief.

It wouldn't be belief if there were evidence.

There is plenty of historical evidence for events in the Bible as a whole.

Care to share this evidence? As long as it's not of the "this place exists so it proves this happened" variety, it could be interesting to see.

The story of creation is lacking in this evidence compared to other parts of the Bible, but that doesn't mean it is false.

You're correct, it doesn't mean it's false... just that The Bible is:

According to The Bible, God cannot lie

Genesis details the creation of "all" animals as they are

There is only contradictory evidence, no corroborating

Either Genesis is a lie, or God changed reality (in which case He's a liar)

 

[Imari]

I can believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK because nobody knows for sure who killed him. There is evidence to support that Oswald killed JFK, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm it, to prove it.

Admittedly, this is not a binary thing. Generally, it tends to depend upon how far the evidence you have is from a primary source.

For example, I can see the sun and measure it's various properties. That's about as good as it gets.

I can know certain things about the sun in the past through secondary observations and records. I might say that the sun was a certain way yesterday and be pretty certain about it. I might say the sun was a certain way a million years ago and be less certain, but still have evidence to prefer that over some other hypothesis.

I might not have any evidence for how the sun was a billion years ago. In that case, I really couldn't say anything about the sun then, although I might have my own beliefs about how it was.

When discussing the existence of God it's the same deal- there is evidence to support His existence as well as evidence to support that He doesn't exist, but there isn't enough evidence to prove either position.

This is true of many things, one weighs all the evidence and comes up with the most consistent explanation for all of it.

It should be pointed out that there's no such thing as evidence for non-existence. There's the statement that non-falsifiable things cannot exist, but there's no real observation that one could make that would concretely prove non-existence. Conceivably one could demonstrate that a certain entity could not exist under the physical laws as we understand them, but we're well aware that we don't have a total understanding of physical laws anyway.

So really, all you have to weigh is the positive evidence. What positive evidence for God can you contribute to this discussion?

I'll warn you now that any "evidence" from the Bible is likely to be mocked and/or ignored. Scientists don't use textbooks as evidence, they use the experiments and data that those textbooks reference as evidence. You should attempt to do the same, and reference primary sources where possible.

Because it can't be proven that God doesn't exist, we can correctly believe that He does.

Did someone say it was incorrect to believe in God? I certainly didn't.

People are free to believe whatever they want. It's only when they start making factual statements based on their beliefs that the problems start.

Because your description suggests that you believe in reincarnation - do you?

Whether I believe or not is irrelevant, as the statement that started this wasn't by me. My beliefs don't come into this at all. Ask Jet Badger.

 

[Jet Badger]

That would only work if couple A + B produced child C,

But if couple A + B did not have child C because of marital issues and then A had a child with Z and produced child Y we can no longer call child C as dead before they became alive.

I think what I'm trying to say is that in this case something cant be dead before it is conceptualised?

So future person(s) cant be dead.

But they're not alive either? I'm not sure why are we having problems with using the word "dead" to describe things that are not alive.

To say my consciousness is the same after death as before death is also an illogical thing to say why did I not have memories at birth - the same as I did as when I will die? What I'm saying here is that before and after cant therefore be the same nor called the same without confusion as to what I mentioned before the cycle of events, unless you believe in reincarnation?

I have no objection to pre-birth or pre-consciousness or pre-life or pre-animate or before I was here. To say I was dead before I was alive, To say we were dead before we were alive does not work.

>You do not exist before you're conceived. You don't think, you're not concious.
>You, or rather your conciousness or soul, if you will, do not exist after you die. You don't think, you don't remember, you're not concious. You leave a rotting corpse but there is no you.

That is the concept. And nothing to do with believing in reincarnation, actually - exactly not it. You're getting that idea from your conception that in order for something to be considered "dead", it has to be "alive" first. And that is effectively just picking on words in this case.

Again, I'm not sure why are we having problems with using the word "dead" to describe things that are not alive.

In that case the fetus is not dead and not considered dead for the sole reason because it is indeed alive.

I think each country has its own definition on this which their laws define when a fetus is classed as alive. I am 99% certain that no country considers a fetus from conception as being alive. I maybe wrong as I've not researched all countries just European. This is directly linked to what is considered "ok" to abort a baby.

If it's not considered a human being in the court of law that doesn't render it dead, because, well, it is not.

 

[rono_thomas]

But they're not alive either? I'm not sure why are we having problems with using the word "dead" to describe things that are not alive.



>You do not exist before you're conceived. You don't think, you're not concious.
>You, or rather your conciousness or soul, if you will, do not exist after you die. You don't think, you don't remember, you're not concious. You leave a rotting corpse but there is no you.

That is the concept. And nothing to do with believing in reincarnation, actually - exactly not it. You're getting that idea from your conception that in order for something to be considered "dead", it has to be "alive" first. And that is effectively just picking on words in this case.

Again, I'm not sure why are we having problems with using the word "dead" to describe things that are not alive.


If it's not considered a human being in the court of law that doesn't render it dead, because, well, it is not.

This is getting confusing because a consciousness has a timeline in your description

can be - is - cannot be

the before and after have to be named differently or else you are suggesting, may not want to, the timeline can be restarted as your providing no distinction between the two.


And as for the fetus part where does consciousness begin for you?

 

[Imari]

I've always found it interesting that scientists say humans existed for tens of thousands of years but only just figured out agriculture 10,000 years ago, and written language shortly after. What caused humans to suddenly make this revolutionary discovery?

If I might make a quick aside on this as well:

People like Isaac Newton were (and are) considered to be geniuses. Were I to go back to Isaac Newton's time, I would probably make him look like an idiot. Not because I'm smarter than him, I most certainly am not. But the education that my society has provided me has given me a huge base of knowledge that simply wasn't available to him, and with that I could run rings around what was possibly one of the most intelligent men of the age.

Newton couldn't even begin to start thinking about quantum mechanics or any of the problems of today, because he didn't have the knowledge that was required to start thinking about those things. Just as the Greeks didn't have the knowledge to start formulating electrical theory, or cavemen didn't have the knowledge to start figuring out agriculture.

Any advance requires two things: the foundations of knowledge to be in place to support the discovery, and an intelligent person or people to actually discover it. No one jumps straight from the wheel to semi-conductors. And no one jumps straight from basic language to the works of Shakespeare. It takes time for the knowledge to spread to the level where the next advance can be made, and a bit of luck for the right person or people to turn up, for them to learn the right things, and for them to get the right support that they need to make that intellectual leap.

Gaining knowledge is a gradual process for a society. It can also go backwards, we very nearly lost a lot of what the Greeks knew if it hadn't been for Arabic scholars who preserved and recorded a lot of the great Greek texts. No doubt that a lot of knowledge was lost in the past before writing was commonplace.

It's not hard to see why discoveries started to accelerate rapidly once decent record keeping and education became common.

If you want to think about why it took a long time to "discover" agriculture, imagine that there's a child with no education that has spent his entire life locked in a room. You take this child outside. How many basic concepts can you think of that you would need to teach or explain to this child for them to understand how and why agriculture will work?

I can think of heaps. Basic stuff like "plants grow from seeds", "plants grow on water", "plants need sunlight", "plants only grow in certain types of soil", stuff that we all take for granted but for a caveman without our education this is potentially revolutionary stuff. And that's without even getting into the tools that they might want to actually make the whole thing work in a fashion that is actually preferable to going walking through the woods collecting berries and nuts.

 

[mistersafeway]

Conceivably one could demonstrate that a certain entity could not exist under the physical laws as we understand them, but we're well aware that we don't have a total understanding of physical laws anyway.

@Famine has in this thread (I think multiple times), and has also demonstrated that limitless power is impossible with elementary logic. Basically it was if God can create something he can't destroy, his power isn't limitless, or he could destroy it. If he can't create something he
can't destroy, his power isn't limitless, because he can't create anything, just some things.

Were I to go back to Isaac Newton's time, I would probably make him look like an idiot. Not because I'm smarter than him, I most certainly am not.

I'd contend that you likely are, although you aren't if you measure each of you against your peers. Sorry... I'm sure you know that, just making sure other people do. You're definitely more knowledgeable though. 👍

 

[Jet Badger]

This is getting confusing because a consciousness has a timeline in your description

can be - is - cannot be

the before and after have to be named differently or else you are suggesting, may not want to, the timeline can be restarted as your providing no distinction between the two.

What about Does not exist - Exists - Does not exist?

And as for the fetus part where does consciousness begin for you?

For me? I don't know. Probably when the person, born from it becomes conscious - self aware. But that varies from case to case and does not indicate the difference between the conditions of alive and dead.

 

[niky]

You don't even have to have an awareness of your existence to be alive.

 

[fortbo]

You don't even have to have an awareness of your existence to be alive.

You are completely right, you can be a complete immobile, brain dead vegetable and still be considered alive even without consciousness.

 

[rono_thomas]

Is there a thread for consciousness as I think we're becoming off topic with this?

 

[BobK]

People like Isaac Newton were (and are) considered to be geniuses. Were I to go back to Isaac Newton's time, I would probably make him look like an idiot. Not because I'm smarter than him, I most certainly am not. But the education that my society has provided me has given me a huge base of knowledge that simply wasn't available to him, and with that I could run rings around what was possibly one of the most intelligent men of the age.

Brings to mind something that a modern scientist once said; I forget who and the exact words but it went something like this:

"If I can see so far today it's because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

[mistersafeway]

Isaac Newton himself said it, among others.

 

[BobK]

Okay, strike "modern" unless one wishes to consider Newton as one of the first modern scientists (for which a good case can be made).

👍

 

[Dennisch]

Aaaw.

According to the Pope you should be able to express yourself and give your opinion but when it comes to religion, you can't. You shouldn't ridicule it.

Aaaw.

 

[rono_thomas]

I doubt its being ridiculed but its definitely being contested.