Do you believe in God?

[dylansan]

Again this is a most unique application, with a most unique approach.
In that to run the test, you have to approach with faith and belief.
That is prequalifier.
I would describe it more as a long series of tests, one just leading to another and another, wherein you are more and more convinced of the conclusion, and the conclusion being established over the series of tests.

This test is not valid. The reason is simple: If you used this approach to test any other thing, it could easily lead you to accept a conclusion which is demonstrably false.

If faith and belief are requirements to begin the test than it's difficult if not impossible for the test itself to change your point of view - you've already made the conclusion.

Kids go to bed before Christmas Eve thinking about how much they love Santa and how real he obviously is. Maybe they even dream about him and his reindeer, flying around in the night sky. Then they wake up and find presents under the tree and know that it must've been Santa. I knew he would bring presents for me, they think.

Tell an adult that Santa really exists and they will be skeptical, if not hysterical when you press the matter. Show them presents under thier tree and they will laugh at you even harder. A rational adult can understand that there are many explanations for a seemingly Santa-natural event, so it isn't evidence of anything.

I don't care what experiences you've had. Visions, dreams, voices in your head. You need to understand that your test the way you just described it is impossible for any rational person to even attempt. I cannot have faith and belief in something and still be honest with myself. No matter how much I could tell myself that God exists and I know it, it would be a lie every single time. That's because I don't know things unless I have evidence for them. Your test is backwards. That should be obvious from the fact that it has never been used to make any scientific discovery.

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

I also told you to not double-post, but you seem to have paid no heed to that.Actually you do.

No matter how "obvious" something seems, it's no more or less true than something else unless it has a weight of evidence. You've brought no evidence - you just repeatedly say that other people need to bring evidence against your claim, which is not how it works.

In order to provide evidence either for or against the existence of a deity, you need to come up with a question (hypothesis), then create a test to prove that you're wrong (falsifiability). If you prove yourself wrong you need a new hypothesis and if you don't you need a new test. This is how all knowledge works - and it doesn't matter how much you think you know, because you can always come up with a test to prove yourself wrong...

... unless your position is a belief, in which case you can't. If you can't prove it wrong, it's not knowledge.


Just as our theists here believe that they are right and do not need evidence (which would require them to create a test to prove themselves wrong, which they're are unwilling to do [even if they could - which they can't as their deity is non-falsifiable as described]), you seem to believe you are right and do not need evidence - because you think that the lack of counter-evidence is enough. It's not, it's just a lot of testing that has proved lots of hypotheses about it to be wrong.

We're not talking about little green men in space ships. We're talking about life on other worlds.

It has never been observed - but then we can't directly image the surface of the overwhelming majority of other worlds and we've only visited ten other bodies.

This isn't the same thing as it not existing.

Look Im not getting cheeky or anything but I did not bring up alians so I am already aware of that and secondly how have I double posted the same comment?

Oh right, you're a troll. Well done, it's hard to tell in this thread sometimes.

How am I troll exactly? Do you even know what It means or are you just jealous of my opinion and you have to be a spoiled 🤬 about it just to get the mods attention? If you don't like my opinion then just say your disagreement or 🤬 off and cry on someone else's opinion rather than make up bull:censored: just to 🤬 the person off. I apologise for my language.

 

[dylansan]

@HeelDriverPRO Double posting is just posting two messages after one another. You can respond to multiple people in one post using the +Quote button. Also, splitting up words to get around the swear filter is not looked kindly upon.

 

[Famine]

Look Im not getting cheeky or anything but I did not bring up alians so I am already aware of that

You're already aware that "aliens" means life on other planets and is incredible likely? Then this comment responding to the point about aliens makes no sense at all:

Come on no one belives alians exist no matter how many police video clips that you see on the tv it always turns out as an act.

and secondly how have I double posted the same comment?

Double-posting.

How am I troll exactly? Do you even know what It means or are you just jealous of my opinion and you have to be a spoiled 🤬 about it just to get the mods attention?

You already had our attention, through the double-posts and middling-quality grammar.

If you don't like my opinion then just say your disagreement or 🤬 off and cry on someone else's opinion rather than make up bull:censored: just to 🤬 the person off.

And now you very much have our attention.

I apologise for my language.

How about not using it, like you agreed?


None of which gets us any closer to the point that you need to provide evidence for your claim.

Edit: Aaaaand it's gone.

 

[Liquid]

Uh, can it be elaborated on as to what exactly has led to HeelDriverPRO being banned? I was thinking that a simple "Okay fine, I can't prove god doesn't exist but I really think he doesn't" would have saved face.

 

[Famine]

Uh, can it be elaborated on as to what exactly has led to HeelDriverPRO being banned? I was thinking that a simple "Okay fine, I can't prove god doesn't exist but I really think he doesn't" would have saved face.

Apparently we're all "fat pakis" and Forza stamps all over Gran Turismo. You can combine that with a version of the post into which I already edited a bunch of 🤬 smileys and get the rough gist from there.

 

[Danoff]

It has never been observed - but then we can't directly image the surface of the overwhelming majority of other worlds and we've only visited ten other bodies.

Hmmm....

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Titan, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Enceladus, Tempel 1, Hartley 2, Vesta, Ceres, Eros, Wild 2, Itokawa, 67P, and probably some I'm not thinking of.

 

[Famine]

Hmmm....

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Titan, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Enceladus, Tempel 1, Hartley 2, Vesta, Ceres, Eros, Wild 2, Itokawa, 67P, and probably some I'm not thinking of.

As in "plonked something onto". I've got Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars, Titan, Eros, Itokawa, 9P, 67P and sortof Jupiter.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Hmmm....

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune Ganymede, Callisto, Io, Europa, Titan, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Enceladus, Tempel 1, Hartley 2, Vesta, Ceres, Eros, Wild 2, Itokawa, 67P, and probably some I'm not thinking of.

I think he was thinking more along these lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies

EDIT: Tree'd.

 

[Liquid]

I was thinking that a simple "Okay fine, I can't prove god doesn't exist but I really think he doesn't" would have saved face.

Apparently we're all "fat pakis" and Forza stamps all over Gran Turismo. You can combine that with a version of the post into which I already edited a bunch of 🤬 smileys and get the rough gist from there.

Or that. That's definitely an option.

 

[Danoff]

As in "plonked something onto".

Ok well, that's kindof a narrow definition of visited in my opinion.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

I don't know if I already posted this, but:

I don't believe in god, because if there would be some person like him there should not be any suffering among mankind.

But I respect absolutely everybody who believes in any religion, if it helps her/him beeing stronger.

 

[zzz_pt]

But I respect absolutely everybody who believes in any religion, if it helps her/him beeing stronger.

I disagree. I respect everybody who believes in any religion, if it helps her/him being stronger AND they do not interfere with other people's lives*.

* extreme case: ISIS soldiers

 

[Famine]

Ok well, that's kindof a narrow definition of visited in my opinion.

Yeah, but you know what these people are like. If we haven't scraped the surface to find microbes, it means the little green men who don't exist all hid from the spaceship flying overhead.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

This test is not valid. The reason is simple: If you used this approach to test any other thing, it could easily lead you to accept a conclusion which is demonstrably false.

Not so.
You can can go to the top of a ten story building right now and jump off, believing you can fly, and the test will prove differently, regardless of what you believe.

If faith and belief are requirements to begin the test than it's difficult if not impossible for the test itself to change your point of view - you've already made the conclusion.

Again not so.
The big difference here as I have emphasized repeatedly is you are testing in a different dimension.
The Spiritual dimension which has different tools, rules and laws.

Kids go to bed before Christmas Eve thinking about how much they love Santa and how real he obviously is. Maybe they even dream about him and his reindeer, flying around in the night sky. Then they wake up and find presents under the tree and know that it must've been Santa. I knew he would bring presents for me, they think.

This is actually a very good analogy of the same principle.
The principle being the parents knowing what the kid's expectations(faith in) are, will act to meet those expectations.
God operates the same way.
Except there is no pretense of a fictitious middle man, but rather the person of his son, Jesus Christ.

Tell an adult that Santa really exists and they will be skeptical, if not hysterical when you press the matter. Show them presents under thier tree and they will laugh at you even harder. A rational adult can understand that there are many explanations for a seemingly Santa-natural event, so it isn't evidence of anything.

To the contrary, it is evidence of a very vital principle.

I don't care what experiences you've had. Visions, dreams, voices in your head.

They are all physical, carnal manifestations.
The manifestation of the spiritual, is another dimension.
It is not of the physical.

You need to understand that your test the way you just described it is impossible for any rational person to even attempt. I cannot have faith and belief in something and still be honest with myself.

Why not?

No matter how much I could tell myself that God exists and I know it, it would be a lie every single time. That's because I don't know things unless I have evidence for them. Your test is backwards. That should be obvious from the fact that it has never been used to make any scientific discovery.

Absolutely false.

You don't know things about God, because you want, and have determined a particular type of evidence base on physical rules.
So consequently you are self imposing limitations on yourself and God.
Don't forget, you have the autonomy.
Let me ask you, even in the skewed Santa Claus example, you still got the gifts, didn't you?

 

[Famine]

Not so.
You can can go to the top of a ten story building right now and jump off, believing you can fly, and the test will prove differently, regardless of what you believe.

Congratulations. You just created a falsifiable test.

Hypothesis: I believe that I can fly unassisted.
Falsified hypothesis: I cannot fly unassisted.
Test to prove falsification: Jump off a ten storey building to prove that I cannot fly unassisted.
Result: Splat
Conclusion: My test has proven that in the circumstances of jumping off a ten storey building, I cannot fly unassisted.

Now to your test. In order to test your belief in God you must test that God does not exist. This test must be performed in such a manner as to give the non-existence of God the best possible chance at being true. What test have you performed to prove that God does not exist?


Everything that we know can be proven false with a single test. It almost never is, because we've done billions of tests to prove what we know false in the past and, whether they have succeeded or failed, we've used the tests to improve our knowledge. We can still create tests to prove them false though and we always start from the assumption that what we know is wrong.

You cannot do this with your deity - what test can a god fail? Moreover you're completely unwilling to try. You have your conclusion and you will not entertain any notion that you are wrong in order to even begin to contemplate creating a test to prove it.

And this is why you are closed-minded. You won't accept that you can be wrong. Every other bit of knowledge we have is acquired on the basis of not only can we be wrong, but that we are and we're trying to prove that we are. You want to call that closed-minded because you believe in a deity that can't be tested...

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

I disagree. I respect everybody who believes in any religion, if it helps her/him being stronger AND they do not interfere with other people's lives*.

* extreme case: ISIS soldiers

Examples like ISIS or Andreas Breivik have nothing to do with real religion. They do extreme things under the name of a religion. Do you really think that ISIS has anything to do with Islam other than calling themselves Moslems?

 

[Scaff]

Examples like ISIS or Andreas Breivik have nothing to do with real religion. They do extreme things under the name of a religion. Do you really think that ISIS has anything to do with Islam other than calling themselves Moslems?

The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Yes they do have 'something' to do with religion, they simply represent a small, extreme fringe of that religion, but to try and say they have nothing to do with the religion in question is simply misleading and untrue.

The three Abrahamic religions contain more than enough violence and death on God's orders to justify all manner of actions, as such I would class all three as potentially violent. What matters is how the individual takes those stories and uses them.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Congratulations. You just created a falsifiable test.

Hypothesis: I believe that I can fly unassisted.
Falsified hypothesis: I cannot fly unassisted.
Test to prove falsification: Jump off a ten storey building to prove that I cannot fly unassisted.
Result: Splat
Conclusion: My test has proven that in the circumstances of jumping off a ten storey building, I cannot fly unassisted.

Now to your test. In order to test your belief in God you must test that God does not exist. This test must be performed in such a manner as to give the non-existence of God the best possible chance at being true. What test have you performed to prove that God does not exist?


Everything that we know can be proven false with a single test. It almost never is, because we've done billions of tests to prove what we know false in the past and, whether they have succeeded or failed, we've used the tests to improve our knowledge. We can still create tests to prove them false though and we always start from the assumption that what we know is wrong.

You cannot do this with your deity - what test can a god fail? Moreover you're completely unwilling to try. You have your conclusion and you will not entertain any notion that you are wrong in order to even begin to contemplate creating a test to prove it.

And this is why you are closed-minded. You won't accept that you can be wrong. Every other bit of knowledge we have is acquired on the basis of not only can we be wrong, but that we are and we're trying to prove that we are. You want to call that closed-minded because you believe in a deity that can't be tested...

A shame you didn't read the rest of the post.
Then you would know in reality, how irrelevant this all is, except in relation to physical knowledge.
Sorry, different ballgame.
God is a spirit, and he resides in the spiritual.
There is no test physically to test for.
His terms for a test are therefore established in the spiritual dimension.
You just don't get it.
There is no value for us, or him, in a physical manifestation.


BTW, you are just as closed minded, as I am.
So what good is that argument?

 

[Famine]

A shame you didn't read the rest of the post.

Which I did.

Then you would know in reality, how irrelevant this all is, except in relation to physical knowledge.

Why?

Sorry, different ballgame.

Why?

God is a spirit, and he resides in the spiritual.

According to?

There is no test physically to test for.

Why?

You've been claiming you did a test. You can share the test that you performed that God had a chance to fail.

His terms for a test are therefore established in the spiritual dimension.

Why?

You just don't get it.
There is no value for us, or him, in a physical manifestation.

Why?

BTW, you are just as closed minded, as I am.

No, I will happily accept your deity or any other if it makes itself known to me. I will happily accept ghosts, voodoo, fortune, magic, aliens, psychics or indeed anything that will subject itself to a test it can fail. That's literally the opposite of closed-mindedness - approaching everything with no preconceptions

I keep asking for your test, step-by-step, from atheism to spiritual enlightenment and knowledge of God. I want to do your test - I want knowledge. You won't share what that test is, except to give vague instructions like "read the New Testament" - and when pressed on which one you tell me that any will "suffice".

I know why you won't share what that test is, and I know why you keep on making up reasons why it'd be no good for me to do the test anyway. Psychics have been doing the same thing for centuries.


But at least you've now admitted that you are closed minded.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Yes they do have 'something' to do with religion, they simply represent a small, extreme fringe of that religion, but to try and say they have nothing to do with the religion in question is simply misleading and untrue.

The three Abrahamic religions contain more than enough violence and death on God's orders to justify all manner of actions, as such I would class all three as potentially violent. What matters is how the individual takes those stories and uses them.

Then tell me which part of the Qur'an tells sunites and shiites apart. Which part tells that the sunites shall kill all shiites?

 

[Famine]

Then tell me which part of the Qur'an tells sunites and shiites apart. Which part tells that the sunites shall kill all shiites?

Which part of the Bible tells Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses apart? Which part tells them to kill Muslims?

 

[zzz_pt]

Then tell me which part of the Qur'an tells sunites and shiites apart. Which part tells that the sunites shall kill all shiites?

Do you know that in Saudi Arabia they behead people on a daily basis and they're shia muslim right? Religion driven.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

Which part of the Bible tells Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses apart? Which part tells them to kill Muslims?

That is what I want to point out! That has nothing to do with religion!

 

[Scaff]

Then tell me which part of the Qur'an tells sunites and shiites apart. Which part tells that the sunites shall kill all shiites?

As @Famine has already pointed out that argument would effectively mean that no one is actually a true "insert religion here".

Every member of every faith I have ever come across cherry picks from the texts, every one of them, and every one of them will tell you they are the ones following the right version.

That is what I want to point out! That has nothing to do with religion!

That depends on exactly how you interpret a vague historic story that has been retold, converted, cherry picked from, etc.

They all claim to be the ones who are 'right'.

Define a 'true' Christian for me.

 

[Famine]

That is what I want to point out! That has nothing to do with religion!

But they think it does. They all think that they are in the right because they - or more commonly the people who interpret it for them - think that their holy book says that they are.

Which is why you end up with people who will abandon all concepts of reality when it comes to their deity and argue until everyone else is blue in the face that their God is the only right one.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

@Scaff @Famine @zzz_pt

Forget about that. We can discuss forever about it.

My opinion: I don't think there is any kind of god but I respect everybody who thinks that there is somebody like in many religious paperworks (Bible, Qur'an,...).

ISIS, in my honest opinion which I don't want to discuss about further more, is driven by the weapon industry and has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with the islam.

 

[squadops]

Every member of every faith I have ever come across cherry picks from the texts, every one of them, and every one of them will tell you they are the ones following the right version.

That is a good thing.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff @Famine @zzz_pt
ISIS, in my honest opinion which I don't want to discuss about further more, is driven by the weapon industry and has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with the islam.

A distinction they would happily kill you over.

It doesn't matter of you think they have nothing to do with Islam, and depends totally on if they believe they are driven and motivated by an literal and extreme form of Islam.

That is a good thing.

Not sure if this is a statement or a question?

If its a question, well that depends on what they have cherry picked and what they intend to do to others based on it. I have no issue with any persons self-belief, never have, it a desire to enforce that belief on anyone else I have an issue with.

 

[ImmalovemaGTR]

It doesn't matter of you think they have nothing to do with Islam, and depends totally on if they believe they are driven and motivated by an literal and extreme form of Islam.

If I say I am you, am I you?

I don't want to discuss further more

Yeah I know. Sorry.