"I asked God to help me"

All complete idiots and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

“This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.”
“Voltaire”

And what these threads tend to degenerate into

Nag,Nag,Nag

What’s your point caller?

God-Ontological reasons for…

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

God-Ontological reasons for…

What about them?

No.2-The idea of God exists in the mind

Not sure where else ideas can exist. Do you mean god only exists in the mind?

All complete idiots and nowhere near as clued up as some of the posters on here.

It’s worth noting that religion was different in those days. It was what you did, in public at least.

John 1:1
Originally written in Aramaic-Logos
Nous
Lots lost in translation

Not sure where else ideas can exist. Do you mean god only exists in the mind?

The poetry of the Christmas gospel, well done Nick 1962.

Voltaire.. that well known idiot.

I don’t know whats been lost in translation Nick but you’ve certainly lost me.

Is god an idea?
Who to believe Plato,Buddha ,St Augustine,Thomas Aquinas,Malebranche,Einstein…even Dawkins!
Greater minds than STW have given this a lot of thought.
I know where I’ll be looking.
In the classifieds 🙂

How am I supposed to do that? I’m not one of them!

I am not aware of any evidence, no.

But yet again, let me re-iterate my point:

Choosing to believe does not necessarily mean you are stupid.

So you say there are those that disagree, well so what they don’t have any evidence, which you admit is true. Yet you think that those that choose to believe are not stupid? Firstly, you are not making any sense, and secondly you are arguing with yourself as I don’t claim they are exclusivly stupid, they could be deluded, mad or poorly educated/informed.

Your argument is based on the assumption that believing without evidence is stupid.

Without wishing to be abrasive or offensive, I’m just stating it as I see it, but yes you are finally getting it (although I would prefer to say one or some of stupid, mad, deluded, or poorly educated/informed).

How can believing without evidence be anything other than one of those?

SRSLY Toys, please stop.

Lifer, firstly molgrips raised the stupid word, I am just responding. We are having a discussion, this isn’t just pointless point scoring, I’m interested in getting molgrips to either prove me wrong or me prove him wrong. That seems fine to me. If you don’t like it don’t read this thread.

How can believing without evidence be anything other than one of those?

I’ve been trying to explain that for half the thread.

Your argument is based on the assumption that believing without evidence is stupid.

if you use this as you basis for finding truth in the world inevitably you will end up with some stupid [ ill conceived, incorrect, false] views of reality

to believe things without evidence [ in this case you may even argue despite the evidence] is stupid creationism for example
In this respect it is stupid.

Good – lets have an answer then ‘cos I am fascinated

Are you talking about the creation story or the existence of God?

if you use this as you basis for finding truth in the world inevitably you will end up with some stupid [ ill conceived, incorrect, false] views of reality

Those are all subjective terms!

Look, it’s very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

yay thank you JY, finally someone else admits it.

I echo teej, come on molgrips lets have an answer, I haven’t seen any evidence or discussion to prove that faith isn’t down to one of my quatrain of causes. (I’ll try and refrain from repeating them as it appears to be hurting some peoples feelings)

What’s stupid to one person is perfectly reasonable to another.

MNolgrips the positions “there is a god” and “there is no god” are not equivalents.

One is a beleif without evidence, the other is an absence of belief in the seance of evidence the first is based on faith – the second on rational thought

The existence of God is unprovable either way

Ok I take issue with this, and have done since the beginning, you cannot claim something exists purely because you cannot disprove it. Otherwise you could postulate any thing you like and becasue there is no contrary evidence then its ok to believe in it, then we get flying teapots/spagghetiimonsters/unicorns and any other fairy story crap that the human imagination cares to dream up.
in molgrips world:
Lord of the rings? True, I cant prove it isn’t true so it’s ok to believe it is.
Home and Away? All true.
Peppa Pig? True.
You can only claim something exists if you can find evidence to prove it exists.

Is there a hole in my argument you would care to point out?

The existence of God is unprovable either way.

Theoretically, the existence of god is provable, we just haven’t worked out how yet. It’s the non-existence that’s unprovable.

You can only claim something exists if you can find evidence to prove it exists.

Is there a hole in my argument you would care to point out?

You can claim that you believe something exists, or suspect that it does. Generally though, there’s at least some sort of reason for thinking this.

Science does this all the time; there’s no proof that the Higgs Boson exists, but there are other factors which suggest that it might do, so some very clever people are looking really hard to see if they can find it. The difference is, even though there’s not yet a shred of proof, there’s good reason to suspect that it might be there, so it’s not unreasonable a theory.

This is where organised religions falls down, for me; it’s not that there’s no proof of god which is the sticking point for me, it’s that there’s little reason to think that any of the religions might be on the right track because ultimately it’s all based on stuff we made up back in a time when we thought the Earth was flat and stars were points of light in a sky dome.

They are equivalents.

In both cases, adherents are looking at what they’ve been told and read, and choosing an option that sits well with their mindset.

It’s a bit of a different argument, but how many of you really know jack sh*t about the big bang? Really? Or are you just going by what you read in a book?

Ok I take issue with this, and have done since the beginning, you cannot claim soemthing exists purely becasue you cannot disprove it

Flippin ‘eck. I’m not claiming something exists, for a start.

Those who do claim he exists – I don’t think they are using that argument. If they are then they could legitimately be accused of being stupid in that respect 🙂

in molgrips world:

Jesus. You are being dense now, you have no idea of my point at all. And you are arguing terribly.

“Evidentialism should be rejected on the grounds that it is false by its own standards, since evidentialism is not itself evidenced, it is inherently paradoxical to hold this view.”

Discuss-might be a bit beyond you Toys19 😉

Theoretically, the existence of god is provable, we just haven’t worked out how yet. It’s the non-existence that’s unprovable.

Exactly. When someone proves god to me I’ll believe it, until then I don’t. The major reason being that for at least the last 2000 years peopel have been trying to find evidence, and they havent, in fact there is not even a hint.

Nearly all of the things that were once claimed to be due to god have been proven to be real or natural, so the relious have to turn to the extremes of our knowledge and claim that is god, becasue they know damn well the physicist havent got a decent explaination yet, so its easy to make them look a bit confused (because they are).

Alright smartarse. Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you’re so keen on science.

It’s not really an extreme of knowledge, is it? It’s THE BIG QUESTION. As far as I can tell it’s pretty much un-answerable from the point of view of science. Science seeks to explain cause and effect, why things happen in the universe. Why that universe exists in the first place is well outside its remit.

To re-iterate, I am not religious or spiritualist or any of it, I am a scientist and an atheist.

Molgrips you just said

Flippin ‘eck. I’m not claiming something exists, for a start.

Those who do claim he exists – I don’t think they are using that argument. If they are then they could legitimately be accused of being stupid in that respect
when earlier you said

Look, it’s very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

so are you using the argument of existence due to unprovability or not, because you do seem to be contradicting yourself (and do try not to “be offensive” as you just called me dense, I don’t mind I am a bit dense, but others don’t like it, and to be honest I am surprised at you as so far you haven’t been even mildly abrasive, which is why I have refrianed from hassling you about it..)

Ooh and you called me smartarse, I like that one!

Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you’re so keen on science.

1) This proves my point that religious apoligist always go toth the edge of knowledge to try and discredit atheists. But I can see that really this what god is all about so my point is a bit lame.
2) Have you considered that there is no reason why we are here? It just is? Does there have to be a reason.
3) I find that I cannot accept the reason as god. If the reason was god, how did he get here? This is what lead to me to atheism in the first place, it started at primary school.

molgrips – Member

They are equivalents. 🙄 come off it – belief in something with evidence is equivalent to not believing in something because there is no evidence?

Why does the universe exist?

there is no “why” =- there only is “is”

Searching for a “why” is what leads people to religeon. understnding there is no “why” is teh rational position

Those are all subjective terms!

what truth, incorrect is subjective…. is it subjective

You dont even mean this drivel you ar espouting to defend

Look, it’s very simple. The existence of God is unprovable either way. So you can choose the option you WANT to believe in. The one you like.

we all know you cannot prove a negative th eissue is now whether evidence less faith views based that run counter to the actual evidence is a wise or a foolish position.

this view , you espouse, can be used to defend any position as long as I make sure it is not true because, again, you cannot prove a negative.

If you dont think that is unwise then so be it but i dont think you actually believe this but i do believe you believe in tolerance of those who do

i think it is a “stupid” view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid.

I didn’t call you dense, I said you were BEING dense. There’s a difference. The first is a personal insult, the second is a critique of your argument. I do stupid things from time to time but I am overall not stupid. With reference to my earlier posts I am temporarily stupid whilst doing stupid things 🙂

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself here. If something is unproveable then it’s a moot point. It’s not the same as asserting something due to the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The existence of God isn’t just unknown, it’s unknowable

Many religious people are not seeking to PROVE the existence of God. They are happy to accept that which is not subject to concrete proof.

I quite liked the movie Troll Hunter. It is not possible to conclusively prove that it is a good movie.

TandemJeremy – Member

MNolgrips the positions “there is a god” and “there is no god” are not equivalents.

One is a beleif without evidence, the other is an absence of belief in the seance of evidence the first is based on faith – the second on rational thought

Well I don’t know how rational it is to reach conclusions by holding seances 😕

It’s a bit of a different argument, but how many of you really know jack sh*t about the big bang? Really? Or are you just going by what you read in a book?

This is an interesting point. The science-y amongst us ‘know’ science, but we really only know because other people have told us and we believe them. This is exactly the same thought model as theism.

However. The difference is that in the former case, other clever people are constantly trying to disprove what we know, and the first clever people welcome and encourage this. The more they do this and fail, the more likely it is that what we’re being told is correct. In the latter case, when you try to disprove elements of religion, people tend to get cross and shouty, or when really painted into a corner go “oh, well, we didn’t really mean that, it’s just an allegory.”

You’re absolutely right, I don’t know first hand about a lot of this stuff. But I’m fairly confident about which group of people I’m more likely to believe. Fortunately, as I’ve said before, science and nature will go on working with or without my understanding. Which neatly answers the next question.

Why is any of this here? Why does the universe exist? Give me a scientific answer to that if you’re so keen on science.

Is it not supremely arrogant to think, “if I don’t understand this, it can’t be right.” I don’t know why the universe exists, I might never know. There might not be a reason. To some people, this is unacceptable, so god must’ve done it.

i think it is a “stupid” view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid

Bang on.

I don’t know why the universe exists, I might never know. There might not be a reason. To some people, this is unacceptable, so god must’ve done it

We MIGHT never know? I do not think there even is an answer, in scientific terms. I don’t mean what caused it, I mean why is there even a framework for that cause to operate? When the universe is EVERYTHING, how can there be anything outside of it? By definition, there isn’t. And yet, we believe it was created at some point so again logically there must be something outside it. It’s a paradox, isn’t it? And by ‘paradox’ I don’t mean a difficult question, I mean its two mutually conflicting ideas that both seem true.

The idea that God exists is a great way to resolve this.

I’ve got more for you – how do you know we aren’t all in the petri dish of some scientist or other? This could all be the frickin’ Matrix, and you’d never ever ever know. It would not even be possible to know.

However. The difference is that in the former case, other clever people are constantly trying to disprove what we know, and the first clever people welcome and encourage this. The more they do this and fail, the more likely it is that what we’re being told is correct. In the latter case, when you try to disprove elements of religion, people tend to get cross and shouty, or when really painted into a corner go “oh, well, we didn’t really mean that, it’s just an allegory.”

Ummmm exactly.

molgrips – Member

i think it is a “stupid” view point but i so not think that ll who do it are stupid

Bang on.

You lot are just splitting hairs about how I said stupid, WGAS if it is stupid or they are stupid, now we have all said it. I am happy for you to correct me that people of faith have a stupid viewpoint, fine they are not stupid per se they just have a stupid view point.

(I think it means the same thing, it’s just semantics designed to insult stupid people whilst making them think they havent been insulted, but I’ll go with it.)

The existence of God isn’t just unknown, it’s unknowable

Why do you say that? Of course it’s knowable, he could pop up tomorrow in Trafalgar Square and yell “Psych! Oh my Me, that was a laugh. Now, who’s up for a bit of Rapturing then?” It’s just very unlikely.

Many religious people are not seeking to PROVE the existence of God

I can think of a few goods reason for that.

1) There’s a high chance that they’ll not find him, and then they’d look silly.

2) If they did find him, given the number of competing religions in the world (and all the other possible concepts that no-one’s thought of), odds are that their ideas turn out to be bunk.

3) If they did find him, they’d be out of a job. Why would you need a priest when you can just pop round to Chez God and have a chinwag with the Big Man himself over a nice cup of tea and a Hob Nob?

The existence of God isn’t just unknown, it’s unknowable

so are lots of things that I could make up [ I just have to remember to make them untestable and false].
we were discussing whether this was a wise way to view things and of course it is not hence why you try to get back to stating the obviously true statement above. no is disputing this we are discussing whether it is wise [or stupid if you are toys 😉 ] to do this.
Is it a general rule you follow?
Its not even a general rule that the religious follow