POLL: One Statement

Remove all ads!

Do you agree with this one statement? Please vote to see the statement.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 49 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: One Statement (49 votes.)

I can not prove or disprove the existence of God. (Choose 1)
* True - 88% (43)
* False - 12% (6)

 

Which god are we proving or disproving here. I remember Judas (the SP member...) once saying something along the lines of 'While it is impossible to prove that a god does not exist, it is relatively easy to prove that the Christian god doesn't'.

The same can probably be said for any other religion though if you put your mind to it.

 

Depends on what you mean by prove, I think it can be proven well within reasonable doubt that any god of any religion in our world today or in the past do not exist. As I said in the rape thread I do not think you can prove anything 100%, as for proving non-existance that is just impossible. I cant prove that invisible yellow gorillas does not exist and sneaks around but that does not mean that they do exist.

 

The answer is True, no matter what you believe.

 

It's hell of a lot of work positively to prove that something doesn't exist. Pointing out that there's no positive proof of existence still doesn't make a positive proof of non-existence.

I believe that humans can know God to some extent or interact with Him, but faith wouldn't really be required if it were so easy to check that God exists. Surely I'm unable to come up with such a compelling proof that someone wouldn't reject it.

 

Glad to see you all agree with me. Anyway, the real deal is that (as chev tried to point out) you really can't believe in something if it's existence is clear. Belief intervienes when you can't be sure that something exists, but you think and hope that it exists. What I realised is that if you believe that something exists, then that something really does exist FOR YOU. Anyway, my phoilosophy in life is that "Ballance is key" in whatever you do, including religion.

 

I must disagree with that - I believe in plenty of things that I know exist ... in fact, I believe in everything that I know exists. They are right in front of me, how could I not believe in their existance...?

I can certainly tell you that if god rocked up, knocked on my door and introduced himself while doing sufficiently godly things, I would certainly believe in him. There would then be absolutely no reason not to.

Or maybe I'm missing your point... *shrugs*

 

you don't believe in a rock, for instance. you KNOW it exists. you seem to missunderand the meaning of the word "belief"

Chev, please explain to Aik what "belief" really is, I am incapable

 

... Er, yes, I do believe in a rock. I also know it exists.

Let's see what dictionary.com has to say on the matter.

I have trust and confidence in the rock existing quite fine.

Yup, I do accept and am quite convinced that the rock is truely, actually, and validly a rock.

This looks more like the definition you're looking for. It does not invalidate the other two - it also says nothing about necessarily not 'knowing' about the thing in which you place your belief.

Well, having examined and considered the evidence, I am now convinced of the truth that the rock is a rock.

 

The argument can fall down to two opinions: "I believe God exists,therefore he exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't exist."

In a legal sense God does not exist. Burden of proof is placed on the person making the claim that God does exist and no evidence has been provided.

 

If you believe in something which can have the form of a logical statement (e.g. deity X exists, UFO lands on your backyard etc) you treat it more or less like a normal fact, which is different from a standard opinion (e.g. fast food is healthy, Bush speaks good English) - although the latter you still tend to see as more or less a fact (in someone's brain, his evaluations work like logical syllogisms because he's operating on more or less clear criteria of his own preference).

For other people, however, this is either an integral, unseparated part of beliefs or a new imaginary entity - i.e. a certain category rather than a traditional entity. Still, belief doesn't create beings out of nothing. This is why it doesn't make much sense to say, e.g. both God and Zeus exist but one exists for me and the other for you. It only makes sense to realise that other people don't treat the existence of your deity as a fact and that they take the non-existence of it and possibly the existence of some other supernatural deity or force for granted and it works like a physical fact in their minds much like the existence of your deity does for you.

 

I aree with you, chev.

@Aik:

Did I ever tell you that a rock isn't a rock?

@Abomination:

You forgot the neutral (agnostic) way. "I can't say that God exists, or that God doesn't exist. For me, the existence of God is a possibility, but not a certainty."

 

I am a recent "convert" to strong atheism(having been a "weak atheist" for most of my life) so I will assuredly dissent from your claim that we cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing.

Here is an example:


Square circles do not exist.

I can say with 100% certainty that no where in reality do any square shaped circles exist because of the law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be both "square" and "not square" at once.

Likewise, transcendent Gods do not exist.

When theists claim that "God exists" their claims follow one or more of a few different forms:

1)God is some completely natural phenomenom which we have no reason to call "God"(e.g. the sun, hope, fear, love, the universe itself etc.).

or

2)God is "transcendent" and therefore BEYOND our ability to know/concieve of/understand.


or


3)God is meaningless. THe word "God" is so broadly defined that we can have no idea what the theist means when he invokes it.


The problem with 1) is that this is simply renaming a non-God "God". Calling my toaster oven "Sasquatch" does not prove bigfoot exists or refute all oif the evidence that demonstrates Bigfoot's non-existence.

The problem with 2)Is that, while it MAY be an escape hatch for the logical inconsistencies attributed to God, it also disallows us any basis to make claims for his existence. The default status of an existential claim lacking in substantiation is "false", logically speaking. Fairies, elves, dragons and gods do not exist until someone shows that they DO exist!

the problem with 3) is that the theist might as well be saying "Gorblatcher Z$ng! *Sprongfloik!". It is nonsense and I cannot do anything with nonsense. Nonsense cannot be scrutinised to even assign a degree of probability to it's truthfullness.


Edit: forgot a few things.

Agnosticism is not the "neutral way". Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not "belief". I am an agnsotic atheist(as are most atheists and most agnostics). Agnosticism, like atheism comes in two distinct camps.

Weak agnosticism is a simple lack of knowledge of God. Weak agnostics can be either theistic or atheistic.

Strong agnosticism(Huxlian agnosticism) is the certainty that knowledge of God is impossible to have. Most weak atheists are strong agnostics and vice versa. ALL strong atheists are so for obvious reasons.

[ March 22, 2005, 02:56: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Whether you can prove your beliefs or not is not important. What matters is faith, only if you have complete faith can you be true to your religion. And when I say faith I don't mean dedication, I don't mean showing up to church every sunday. I mean a deep feeling inside of you that clouds out all questioning of god and leaves only complete belief. Whether someone shows evidence of your religion being false makes no matter. If you believe in it then that's all that matters. Never doubt the power of belief. Pure faith is impossible to compete with!

 

Dear God ! Again ?
Whole discussion is pointless. I'm catholic, and must say that if someone believes in God, no proof is needed, OTOH there is no proof good enough to convert an atheist. Lastly, in case of prooving nonexistance of God, not one of this makes much sense, and cannot make true believer to lose faith.

(like it was in one poem, rough translation, sorry...)

Atheist: God doesn't exist. I have a proof !
Believer: Oh, really ? But I was talking with Him this morning...

 

The thing is, you can't ALL be right. Almost all of you must be clinging to a vain faith in something non-existent. Unless multiple parallel divinities (and/or absences of divinities) exist that are completely independent from and unaffected by each other.

 

Not really sure what this vote is for....

Show me a babelfish.... (soon...soon...the movie will be out soon...).

 

HB - honestly, I don't quite understand what you mean...

 

I'm saying the only way that it is possible for you all to be right is if it is possible for God (or Gods) to both exist and not exist at the same time.

 

Who said we all are right ?
All statements are either true or false, only we don't have abilities/resources to prove or deny them. There is only one Truth, but, well, mostly beyond our understanding. In some cases it can change in future, I hope, but existance of God will never be proved or denied. But this also is either true or false !