Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[Seth]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

But the essential question is whether or not the definition creates the thing or the thing exists but not necessarily in the defined form.

That's not meaningless wibble, it's a fundamental understanding of logic that rational persons ought to have before bloviating on anything at all. Or said in another way, does the possibility that the definition or description of a thing is incorrect cause the thing to cease to exist or is it evidence of the non-existence of the thing?

The answer to that is "no."

So is the answer to, "Would you like coleslaw with that?" It also has the benefit of being easier to understand and much much easier to care about.

It's not my fault you all keep on citing the Atheist's Fallacy time after time after time. You could just say "I don't know" and be secure that you have made an unassailable factual argument.

We all? I voted cheese!

I don't know. I don't know ANYTHING. But I find that making working assumptions is necessary to make sense of and function in this world. One of those working hypotheses is that there is no god - so far, that works just fine. The world has a lot less inconsistencies if you assume it is true (as compared to the years I spent trying to fit there actually being such a bizarre being). As with all of my assumptions, of course, it is subject to immediate revision should better evidence present. So far, none has.

Why do you need a "working hypothesis" about something you purport to have no belief in? Sounds a bit oxymoronic to me. If you really have "an absence of belief" about God, then no hypothesis, working or dormant, is either required or rational. That you have a working hypothesis indicates that you do not have an "absence of belief" in God, you have an active negative belief, which is to say you actively believe God does not exist, which makes your "working hypothesis" every bit as much of an unverified and unverifiable religious belief as that of the theist, since you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever upon which to base a rational conclusion that God does not exist.

[Seth]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

It's worse than that. God doesn't even have a working definition.

Actually, it has many working definitions, many of which are mutually exclusive.

What is a god supposed to actually be?

I don't know.

Saying, "God is transcendant," doesn't really tell you what it is. Neither does, "God is love." Saying, "God is omniscient and omnibenevolent" is a description of his qualities. "God is the prime mover, the ultimate creator", that's just a job description. Any dictionary you look into none of them actually define what God is. Just his qualities and super-powers.

And that provides evidence of the non-existence of God how, exactly? Does the fact that 18th century science didn't understand sub-atomic particles mean that the sub-atomic particles did not come into being until some scientist discovered them? Of course not. A failure of human understanding provides nothing by way of affirmation or negation of the existence of God, does it?

Some relgious people say, "You'll know him when you find him", but how will you know?

Well, according to my research on the subject, you will know because you will know. The "how" is unimportant.

If you see me searching the ground in the forest and ask me what I'm doing and I told you I was looking for a watch my mother gave me, I already know what I'm searching for. I already know I'll know it when I find it because I already know what it is. This isn't the case when people are searching for God so I'm not sure how they know it when they find it. What if they just think that what they've found is God, but is really just a self-misdiagnosis of hyperventilating or seizure or even just a simple lovey feeling totally produced internally by the brain?

Well, that's supposedly the miracle of a God-experience. When (if) it happens to you, all of those questions are answered in an instant. Just because you don't know the answers now doesn't mean God doesn't exist, does it?

But let's suppose, arguendo that the experience is hyperventilation or seizure or any other internally generated experience. If it make the person happy and helps them get through the day without hurting other people, who cares what the actual mechanism is? More importantly, if God is omnipotent, it's hardly beyond God's ability to induce an "internally generated experience" as a pathway towards discovery of the actual truth. So once again we see that your rationalizing doesn't get you anywhere in your quest to deny the existence of God (or gods).

And with that I can't even put a tick in any of the boxes or answer the question in any meaningful way.

Which is why they say "There are none so blind as those who will not see." It may be that your skepticism is what is blocking your ability to experience a personal relationship with God, and that all you need to do is suppress your skepticism long enough to truly seek, which may result in finding what you seek.

At least that's the rationale I get from the religious experts.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why do you need a "working hypothesis" about something you purport to have no belief in? Sounds a bit oxymoronic to me. If you really have "an absence of belief" about God, then no hypothesis, working or dormant, is either required or rational. That you have a working hypothesis indicates that you do not have an "absence of belief" in God, you have an active negative belief, which is to say you actively believe God does not exist, which makes your "working hypothesis" every bit as much of an unverified and unverifiable religious belief as that of the theist, since you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever upon which to base a rational conclusion that God does not exist.

I have no belief in anything. Didn't you read what I wrote?

I have no belief in gravity but assuming it's not going to work tends to hurt, hence I go with the evidence of my senses and the results of experimentation. I do the same with god and find that there really is no reason to assume he/she/it exists - all that does is overcomplicate an already complex enough existence. So god goes in the bin with fairies, leprechauns and honest politicians.

[Seth]

Why do you need a "working hypothesis" about something you purport to have no belief in? Sounds a bit oxymoronic to me. If you really have "an absence of belief" about God, then no hypothesis, working or dormant, is either required or rational. That you have a working hypothesis indicates that you do not have an "absence of belief" in God, you have an active negative belief, which is to say you actively believe God does not exist, which makes your "working hypothesis" every bit as much of an unverified and unverifiable religious belief as that of the theist, since you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever upon which to base a rational conclusion that God does not exist.

I have no belief in anything. Didn't you read what I wrote?

Yes, I did, and I'm telling you that it is impossible for you not to have beliefs, therefore your claim is invalid.

I have no belief in gravity but assuming it's not going to work tends to hurt, hence I go with the evidence of my senses and the results of experimentation.

Of course you believe in gravity. Moreover you hold beliefs about gravity. You cannot not have beliefs. It's impossible. You experience gravity when you are conscious, but you believe that gravity will continue to affect matter when you are unconscious and you also believe that gravity works the same everywhere for everything that has mass. But in fact you have no knowledge that this is true, and therefore you hold beliefs.

I do the same with god and find that there really is no reason to assume he/she/it exists - all that does is overcomplicate an already complex enough existence. So god goes in the bin with fairies, leprechauns and honest politicians.

No, you believe that there is no reason to assume God exists. You have no evidence upon which to base actual knowledge that God does not exist, therefore you hold a belief. You cannot do otherwise no matter how much you try to semantically squirm out of the truth.

And firmly holding to a belief-set is one of the classic definitions of "religion."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, Seth. I don't believe. Believing implies accepting without evidence. I accept the verity of gravity based on evidence. That is the distinction. To all intents and purposes, there is very little practical difference between the two - but there is a difference.

This distinction has been pointed out to you by many of us here many times yet you refuse to accept it. So it goes.

[Animavore]

A question as to whether something, often defined such that its existence is unfalsifiable, actually exists - is meaningless wibble.

It's worse than that. God doesn't even have a working definition.

Actually, it has many working definitions, many of which are mutually exclusive.

What is a god supposed to actually be?

I don't know.

Saying, "God is transcendant," doesn't really tell you what it is. Neither does, "God is love." Saying, "God is omniscient and omnibenevolent" is a description of his qualities. "God is the prime mover, the ultimate creator", that's just a job description. Any dictionary you look into none of them actually define what God is. Just his qualities and super-powers.

And that provides evidence of the non-existence of God how, exactly? Does the fact that 18th century science didn't understand sub-atomic particles mean that the sub-atomic particles did not come into being until some scientist discovered them? Of course not. A failure of human understanding provides nothing by way of affirmation or negation of the existence of God, does it?

Some relgious people say, "You'll know him when you find him", but how will you know?

Well, according to my research on the subject, you will know because you will know. The "how" is unimportant.

If you see me searching the ground in the forest and ask me what I'm doing and I told you I was looking for a watch my mother gave me, I already know what I'm searching for. I already know I'll know it when I find it because I already know what it is. This isn't the case when people are searching for God so I'm not sure how they know it when they find it. What if they just think that what they've found is God, but is really just a self-misdiagnosis of hyperventilating or seizure or even just a simple lovey feeling totally produced internally by the brain?

Well, that's supposedly the miracle of a God-experience. When (if) it happens to you, all of those questions are answered in an instant. Just because you don't know the answers now doesn't mean God doesn't exist, does it?

But let's suppose, arguendo that the experience is hyperventilation or seizure or any other internally generated experience. If it make the person happy and helps them get through the day without hurting other people, who cares what the actual mechanism is? More importantly, if God is omnipotent, it's hardly beyond God's ability to induce an "internally generated experience" as a pathway towards discovery of the actual truth. So once again we see that your rationalizing doesn't get you anywhere in your quest to deny the existence of God (or gods).

And with that I can't even put a tick in any of the boxes or answer the question in any meaningful way.

Which is why they say "There are none so blind as those who will not see." It may be that your skepticism is what is blocking your ability to experience a personal relationship with God, and that all you need to do is suppress your skepticism long enough to truly seek, which may result in finding what you seek.

At least that's the rationale I get from the religious experts.

Mind your fucking business what I believe.

[Seth]

No, Seth. I don't believe.

Yes, you do. Belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing."

Believing implies accepting without evidence.

And since there is no evidence that God does not exist, you therefore believe God does not exist.

I accept the verity of gravity based on evidence.

Indeed. But it's still a belief. A number of them in fact.

That is the distinction. To all intents and purposes, there is very little practical difference between the two - but there is a difference.

One who has been exposed to a thing (in this case a concept of a thing) can hold nothing other than a belief about the truth or existence of that thing until sufficient understanding and information to qualify the mental state as "knowledge" exists. One simply cannot have "no belief" about something that raises a question in one's mind. It's simply impossible. The very fact that one does not fully understand the nature or truth of a thing one is exposed to automatically raises a question in one's mind, which generates a provisional decision involving either belief or disbelief (not "unbelief" or "lack of belief" or "absence of belief") in the truth or existence of the thing. In your case the decision (belief) may fall on the side of disbelief in the absence of evidence that compels some other decision, but the absence of evidence that the thing does not exist or is not true is not, as they say, evidence of the absence of the thing, and you simply cannot truthfully claim that you hold "no belief" about the truth or falsity of the concept of God or the truth or falsity of the existence of God.

This distinction has been pointed out to you by many of us here many times yet you refuse to accept it. So it goes.

Why should I accept something that is obviously erroneous and manifestly not true?

[Seth]

Mind your fucking business what I believe.

It is my business, so I am minding it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, Seth. I don't believe.

Yes, you do. Belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing."

Believing implies accepting without evidence.

And since there is no evidence that God does not exist, you therefore believe God does not exist.

I accept the verity of gravity based on evidence.

Indeed. But it's still a belief. A number of them in fact.

That is the distinction. To all intents and purposes, there is very little practical difference between the two - but there is a difference.

One who has been exposed to a thing (in this case a concept of a thing) can hold nothing other than a belief about the truth or existence of that thing until sufficient understanding and information to qualify the mental state as "knowledge" exists. One simply cannot have "no belief" about something that raises a question in one's mind. It's simply impossible. The very fact that one does not fully understand the nature or truth of a thing one is exposed to automatically raises a question in one's mind, which generates a provisional decision involving either belief or disbelief (not "unbelief" or "lack of belief" or "absence of belief") in the truth or existence of the thing. In your case the decision (belief) may fall on the side of disbelief in the absence of evidence that compels some other decision, but the absence of evidence that the thing does not exist or is not true is not, as they say, evidence of the absence of the thing, and you simply cannot truthfully claim that you hold "no belief" about the truth or falsity of the concept of God or the truth or falsity of the existence of God.

This distinction has been pointed out to you by many of us here many times yet you refuse to accept it. So it goes.

Why should I accept something that is obviously erroneous and manifestly not true?

Meh. You just talkwank as usual. YOUR worldview is clearly pre-eminent here so everyone else is wrong.

That's why nobody likes you.

[Seth]

Meh. You just talkwank as usual. YOUR worldview is clearly pre-eminent here so everyone else is wrong.

Quit being wrong then.

That's why nobody likes you.

I like me. Lots of other people like me. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant. You're just attempting to evade the inevitable truths I have revealed because your ego won't allow you to accept defeat gracefully.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Meh. You just talkwank as usual. YOUR worldview is clearly pre-eminent here so everyone else is wrong.

Quit being wrong then.

That's why nobody likes you.

I like me. Lots of other people like me. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant. You're just attempting to evade the inevitable truths I have revealed because your ego won't allow you to accept defeat gracefully.

I'll gladly concede any point you like - just provide me with evidence.

[Animavore]

Mind your fucking business what I believe.

It is my business, so I am minding it.

Well considering you made a massive mistake early on (that I somehow think the inability of theists to define God proves it doesn't exist, rather than it means I can't get the inquiry of existence or non- off the ground, which was the whole point) and the rest of your post follows erroneously from there it's best you do mind it.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

It's such obvious bollox.

[Svartalf]

tell that to those who believe that "the marvels of Nature, ergo god"

[rachelbean]

Cheese definitely exists. Let's rally around cheese