Thread: I would probably give $1,000,000 to anyone that could convince me that God exists.

Originally Posted by The Lucid Way

The answer is really depends on whether you decide it to exist.
In some people's reality it does exist, while in others - it doesn't.
It's not about opinion, it's reality.

You need to straighten out what kind of reality you're talking about.

If you're talking about perceptual reality, it is all about your personal decisions/perceptions/ and opinion, etc. If you're talking about Absolute Reality, it is independent of your opinion.

Originally Posted by Praise

First understand that he asked a question. The question was why do you believe there is no god. The question does not require some evidence. You already believe there is no god so he is just asking why believe that. It should be very simple to understand.

That is incorrect. These are the exact words that Guitarboy used TheLucid, prove to me God doesn't exist.

Hence my little spiel about how you cannot provide evidence for something not existing. It is simply impossible to do so.

Since it's difficult to prove unicorns aren't real. This does not help you. In the same way it's difficult to prove god doesn't exist. First prove imagination doesn't exist. Only then can you disprove what the imagination can create.

Except i wasn't trying to prove unicorns aren't real. My analogy went right over your head.

I was using Unicorns as an analogy for my thesis statement; which was that you can not prove something does not exist. You can only refute evidence given and since no evidence for a god was given then you could not disprove it. You simply can not do it. That was the whole point of my unicorn analogy.

And you seriously thought i was arguing for the non existence of unicorns?

You seemed to miss it. Wether or not i made a poor analogy or you are just slow, i do not know.

Did anybody else think that i was making a case for the non existence of unicorns?

Or did the rest of you understand i was using the unicorn argument as an analogy?

Originally Posted by Guitarboy

I just want to hear why he doesn't believe....

See here he basically wants to know why one doesn't believe. Your thesis defeats itself since it relies on the fact you can't prove gods non existence.

And I'm assuming he doesn't want another question for an answer. He doesn't want "what evidence is there god does exist?" Or "prove god does exist". Instead he wants specific statements about why it would be concluded god doesn't exist for certain.

Notice you can only refute the idea of god once someone gives possible ideas about the evidence of god. That's why you ask for evidence. If you have nothing to discredit you are screwed. In that case you can't even have a chance to disprove god. So how could you say god doesn't exist with certainty even if the evidence fails.

Originally Posted by Praise

Notice you can only refute the idea of god once someone gives possible ideas about the evidence of god. That's why you ask for evidence. If you have nothing to discredit you are screwed. In that case you can't even have a chance to disprove god. So how could you say god doesn't exist with certainty even if the evidence fails.

Logic failure critical....

It is technically impossible to disprove the existence of a god or divine power at present, but for all intents and purposes, it would be best to assume that such a power does not exist, as there is no evidence to show it does exist. Likewise, it would also be best to assume that leprechauns, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, as there is little to no evidence for any of these creatures. This is the point he was trying to make. The onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim. God is no different from unicorns or the like. Wake up, people.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Logic failure critical....

It is technically impossible to disprove the existence of a god or divine power at present, but for all intents and purposes, it would be best to assume that such a power does not exist, as there is no evidence to show it does exist. Likewise, it would also be best to assume that leprechauns, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, as there is little to no evidence for any of these creatures. This is the point he was trying to make. The onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim. God is no different from unicorns or the like. Wake up, people.

^

This

Originally Posted by Mario92

Logic failure critical....

It is technically impossible to disprove the existence of a god or divine power at present, but for all intents and purposes, it would be best to assume that such a power does not exist, as there is no evidence to show it does exist. Likewise, it would also be best to assume that leprechauns, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, as there is little to no evidence for any of these creatures. This is the point he was trying to make. The onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim. God is no different from unicorns or the like. Wake up, people.

I bump, be God a personage.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Logic failure critical....

It is technically impossible to disprove the existence of a god or divine power at present, but for all intents and purposes, it would be best to assume that such a power does not exist, as there is no evidence to show it does exist. Likewise, it would also be best to assume that leprechauns, unicorns, and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, as there is little to no evidence for any of these creatures. This is the point he was trying to make. The onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim. God is no different from unicorns or the like. Wake up, people.

Yes

We cannot disprove it, and there HASN'T been any evidence. There is nothing anyone has pointed out that can't be understood by science, or doesn't have any potential to be understood by science. The word faith alone means that there is no evidence.

And plus, a scientist need give no explanation where no evidence is present, therefor there is no need for any atheist or deist to back up their beliefs. And therefor, it is the theists who are responsible for guarding what they believe.

Just a few remarks that might be useful in continuing this thread:

There's a foolish sort of idea/mentality/catchphrase that many people share which says that "you can't prove a negative." That doesn't make any sense. If this were so, we couldn't prove "positives" either, as they are just the negatives of a negative (e.g. "Prove God exists" ~= "Prove God doesn't not exist").

To further wreck the idea that "you can't prove a negative", in certain cases you can prove that something does not exist. Consider an odorless, undetectable gas that is instantly fatal to anyone who breathes it, and that is everywhere on the planet. I can show that it does not exist simply by the fact that you and I are posting in this very thread, rather than lying on the floor dead.

I agree that it is indeed quite hard, however, to prove the non-existence of something like a god (although perhaps not impossible, especially depending on the god and its "defining characteristics"). But as Mario92 explained, it is stupid to believe in something because of lack of proof for its non-existence.

Yea, I think it is just impossible to disprove the existence of any entity. I mean we may not even know all the animals on earth, let alone know if theres some all powerful naked guy in the sky.

Originally Posted by Wildman

Just a few remarks that might be useful in continuing this thread:

There's a foolish sort of idea/mentality/catchphrase that many people share which says that "you can't prove a negative." That doesn't make any sense. If this were so, we couldn't prove "positives" either, as they are just the negatives of a negative (e.g. "Prove God exists" ~= "Prove God doesn't not exist").

To further wreck the idea that "you can't prove a negative", in certain cases you can prove that something does not exist. Consider an odorless, undetectable gas that is instantly fatal to anyone who breathes it, and that is everywhere on the planet. I can show that it does not exist simply by the fact that you and I are posting in this very thread, rather than lying on the floor dead.

I agree that it is indeed quite hard, however, to prove the non-existence of something like a god (although perhaps not impossible, especially depending on the god and its "defining characteristics"). But as Mario92 explained, it is stupid to believe in something because of lack of proof for its non-existence.

Yes indeed. What tends to be meant is 'you can't disprove something with no empirical consequences'.

What do you mean by....God?

An omnipotent being actively changing the course of human lives I assume

Interestingly, a study asked theists to divulge their beliefs on controversial issues, such as abortion. This was followed by their attributions for famous people and God on the same issues.

Their own beliefs led to corresponding activity in brain areas associated with the self, whereas attributions for famous people led to corresponding activity in other brain areas. Surprisingly, attributions for God resulted in corresponding brain activity responsible for the self, alike their own beliefs.

In the following condition, some of the participants were persuaded to change their views on particular issues. Consequently, when asked to make attributions for the same famous people, the views were identical to the aforementioned condition - they remained unchanged. However, when asked to make attributions for God, the views attributed to him changed in accordance with the participant's altered view.

So, views on God elicit self-representations, and thus His views naturally change when one's own view changes. I'm not particularly sure that I've expressed this clearly. But, what I take from these results is that God is a psychological extension of the self, an inflated conscience...or as Freud would assert: an exalted superego.

Perfect explanation. And organized religion itself is a control device used to shift people ideals into that of your own. In Christianity, a quick example is all the books they omitted from the bible because they wouldn't help the religion, and all the strands of their own religion that they crushed because they didn't represent it properly.

Originally Posted by Xedan

Perfect explanation. And organized religion itself is a control device used to shift people ideals into that of your own. In Christianity, a quick example is all the books they omitted from the bible because they wouldn't help the religion, and all the strands of their own religion that they crushed because they didn't represent it properly.

Mind naming some of those books?

Well, the entire group of books from Enoch. He has first person accounts of living with god and the angels and is only mentioned once in the bible. Also, for the life of me I can't remember his name, but the guy who betrayed Jesus had a book stating that Jesus was born knowing his purpose, and told him to tell the authorities, the act that resulted in the crucification. But this would result in him not looking like a traitor, and was omitted.

Originally Posted by Xedan

Well, the entire group of books from Enoch. He has first person accounts of living with god and the angels and is only mentioned once in the bible. Also, for the life of me I can't remember his name, but the guy who betrayed Jesus had a book stating that Jesus was born knowing his purpose, and told him to tell the authorities, the act that resulted in the crucification. But this would result in him not looking like a traitor, and was omitted.

Judas Iscariot?

yea, him. his book states he was under strict orders from Jesus himself.

Why oh why must God always be referred to as "He"?

If you can prove to me that God is male I will prove to you that God exists, and you can hand over some monies

Million dollars please.

Profoundly shallow thread closed to prevent further kinda-sorta-on-topic-ish necro posts.