God doesn't exist - discuss

stapler said:
A belief is a proposition that a person accepts as truth. 1.Most beliefs for most people are simply there, and I don't just mean beliefs about the supernatural. They are often treated as axiomatic.

2. For example, most people in this country think that stealing is wrong. But that isn't the result of logical thinking or evidence, and there is no fundamental reason why that should be so. It is just there, probably as a deeply ingrained cultural memory.

I am arguing for epistemological rigour on football messageboards.
Click to expand...
1. No, not remotely - unless you have some non-standard use of the word axiomatic?

Whether they have a good reason or not, or whether they even aware of it or not, everything you believe has some justification or evidential basis that convinced you - belief is the acceptance of a proposition. It might be absolutely asinine, it might be incredibly complicated, but there are reasons why everyone believes anything. If you believe things and don't have a reason or justification, you couldn't even engage in a discussion about evidence for it. I don't just wake up one day and randomly assume a host of beliefs and then never consider why. Thats absolutely bizarre.

2. First of all, what most people think about stealing is absolutely irrelevant to why you believe in a god (allegedly).

Secondly, strealing isn't blanket 'wrong', it's contextual. Is it 'wrong' to smash a window and 'steal' medical supplies in order to save someone dying in the street? It is as straightforward as that? How's this for a justification - I think in most cases 'stealing' is non-beneficial to a harmonius society. I don't want people stealing my things, and I don't steal other people's things for that reason. If lots of other people also don't want to randomly burgled or mugged, we can group together and agree not allow that behavior, because it isn't in the interest of anyone - including the would-be thief.

Thirdly, what we're talking about is the postulated existence of some actual, extant, entity, correct? If so, can we stick to that and address that, instead of waving a load of herring? Non-sequitors set aside, why do you believe in a god?
 
Last edited:


stapler said:
I don't really see that much difference. I think the two statements say the same thing in different ways.

You will need to tell me what you say the material difference is if I am to address it.
Click to expand...

In the first you’re asserting that courts make decisions based on eyewitness accounts. In the second you’re walking that back.
 
AlpineExile said:
I'm asking you to name some of this 'eye-witness' evidence you're talking about.

For some bizarre reason you are declining to reply.

Why won't/can't you name any of this 'eye-witness' evidence that you claim exists?
Click to expand...
I am not declining to reply. Your choice of words was imprecise and I asked for clarification.

I don't need to "name" any eye witnesses for my point to be correct. Because I referred to purported eye-witnesses not actual eye-witnesses and I have made no comment whatsoever on their veracity or credibility. That is the weight of evidence. Not the existence of evidence.

But since you have got so excited about the whole attribution point, most of the Pauline epistles claim to be written by Paul, a man who says that the risen-Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. The Book of Revelation is written in the first person by someone (John the Evangelist) who claims to have been given information about the future from Jesus. Various prophets in the Old Testament claim to have talked to God and are written on the first person.
 
Ilios said:
1. No, not remotely - unless you have some non-standard use of the word axiomatic?

Whether they have a good reason or not, or whether they even aware of it or not, everything you believe has some justification or evidential basis that convinced you - belief is the acceptance of a proposition. It might be absolutely asinine, it might be incredibly complicated, but there are reasons why everyone believes anything. If you believe things and don't have a reason or justification, you couldn't even engage in a discussion about evidence for it. I don't just wake up one day and randomly assume a host of beliefs and then never consider why. Thats absolutely bizarre.

2. First of all, what most people think about stealing is absolutely irrelevant to why you believe in a god (allegedly).

Secondly, strealing isn't blanket 'wrong', it's contextual. Is it 'wrong' to smash a window and 'steal' medical supplies in order to save someone dying in the street? It is as straightforward as that? How's this for a justification - I think in most cases 'stealing' is non-beneficial to a harmonius society. I don't want people stealing my things, and I don't steal other people's things for that reason. If lots of other people also don't want to randomly burgled or mugged, we can group together and agree not allow that behavior, because it isn't in the interest of anyone - including the would-be thief.

Thirdly, what we're talking about is the postulated existence of some actual, extant, entity, correct? If so, can we stick to that and address that, instead of waving a load of herring? Non-sequitors set aside, why do you believe in a god?
Click to expand...
Sorry but your proposition, that people's beliefs are the result of some kind of evidence or thought is just not not right. Beliefs are often wrong and irrational. That's why it is classed as a belief, not a conclusion.

I have been talking about whether there is zero or not zero evidence for the existence of God. It is others, including you, who have made my debate something else.

I have not said "I believe in God" on this thread. You have assumed. As it happens, I do.

I do for 2 reasons.

Firstly, because I consider the alternative to be awful. So we're just bags of meat, here for no purpose other than to create more bags is meat? No thanks mate. I'll stick with the risen Christ if it's all the same to you. That's the wonderful thing about beliefs. You can believe what you like.

Second, picture the scene: a load of Judean fishermen just decided to charge around the Empire for the jollies, and within 30 years had convinced enough people to believe in a non-existent person for them to be targeted for persecution by Nero? Sure. That sounds likely
 
elder said:
In the first you’re asserting that courts make decisions based on eyewitness accounts. In the second you’re walking that back.
Click to expand...
I'm not though. I accept that there are other things that courts might take into account, but the admissibility of those things ultimately depends on there being a witness.

Often you don't see it, because parties agree what can or can go in. But if there is a dispute about the authenticity of a document or whatever, it will need to be resolved by a witness.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
stapler said:
I am not declining to reply. Your choice of words was imprecise and I asked for clarification.

I don't need to "name" any eye witnesses for my point to be correct. Because I referred to purported eye-witnesses not actual eye-witnesses and I have made no comment whatsoever on their veracity or credibility. That is the weight of evidence. Not the existence of evidence.

But since you have got so excited about the whole attribution point, most of the Pauline epistles claim to be written by Paul, a man who says that the risen-Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus. The Book of Revelation is written in the first person by someone (John the Evangelist) who claims to have been given information about the future from Jesus. Various prophets in the Old Testament claim to have talked to God and are written on the first person.
Click to expand...
Who's this 'John the Evangelist' dude? In the Book of Revelation he only claims to be someone simply called John.

So why add this claim that he was 'the Evangelist'?

And does he claim to be an eye-witness or does he just claim to have had 'a vision'?
 
AlpineExile said:
Who's this 'John the Evangelist' dude? In the Book of Revelation he only claims to be someone simply called John.

So why add this claim that he was 'the Evangelist'?

And does he claim to be an eye-witness or does he just claim to have had 'a vision'?
Click to expand...
These are points that go to the weight of the evidence not its existence.
 
stapler said:
Firstly, because I consider the alternative to be awful. So we're just bags of meat, here for no purpose other than to create more bags is meat? No thanks mate. I'll stick with the risen Christ if it's all the same to you. That's the wonderful thing about beliefs. You can believe what you like.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe that Taylor Swift is actually in love with me ... because the alternative - I consider - to be awful.
stapler said:
These are points that go to the weight of the evidence not its existence.
Click to expand...
But do you consider that book, as well as the stories about Moses, to be eye-witness evidence, or not?
 
Last edited:
stapler said:
These are points that go to the weight of the evidence not its existence.
Click to expand...
It goes to both. Considering the proposition, weight of evidence does count when arguing the antithesis. I'm not doubting that some people have felt the Touch of God. And good luck to them. It's just that until I feel that touch myself I can't really do anything about it.
 
stapler said:
I'm not though. I accept that there are other things that courts might take into account, but the admissibility of those things ultimately depends on there being a witness.

Often you don't see it, because parties agree what can or can go in. But if there is a dispute about the authenticity of a document or whatever, it will need to be resolved by a witness.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Click to expand...

in reality courts make judgments on the probability of what’s presented to them is true or not. Which witnesses or evidence they believe and which they don’t. Also a small point but it’s the judge who has finally say on any limitations of evidence, which I’m not always a fan of.

Many, many people are convicted without any witnesses to their crimes.

This is about god though and the question around faith and belief…

I can believe that my coding is free from errors as I had someone review it or I can just have faith that it was bug free and hand it over to the test team.

I don’t have either a faith or belief that any gods exist
 
JonMc said:
It goes to both. Considering the proposition, weight of evidence does count when arguing the antithesis. I'm not doubting that some people have felt the Touch of God. And good luck to them. It's just that until I feel that touch myself I can't really do anything about it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't go to both.

Evidence is the means by which a proposition can be proved.

Something is evidence for a proposition if, assuming it is accepted, it means the proposition is true or is more likely.

Weight of evidence is about asking "Do I accept this evidence? How does it compare to other evidence? Which do I prefer? Etc"

A person (other than yourself) telling you that they have felt the Touch of God is direct evidence for the proposition that the person had felt the Touch of God. That in turn leads to an inference "there is a God", because that follows.

You wouldn't accept that - fair enough. Your perogative.
 
stapler said:
It doesn't go to both.

Evidence is the means by which a proposition can be proved.

Something is evidence for a proposition if, assuming it is accepted, it means the proposition is true or is more likely.

Weight of evidence is about asking "Do I accept this evidence? How does it compare to other evidence? Which do I prefer? Etc"

A person (other than yourself) telling you that they have felt the Touch of God is direct evidence for the proposition that the person had felt the Touch of God. That in turn leads to an inference "there is a God", because that follows.

You wouldn't accept that - fair enough. Your perogative.
Click to expand...
I’m touched
 
stapler said:
It doesn't go to both.

Evidence is the means by which a proposition can be proved.

Something is evidence for a proposition if, assuming it is accepted, it means the proposition is true or is more likely.

Weight of evidence is about asking "Do I accept this evidence? How does it compare to other evidence? Which do I prefer? Etc"

A person (other than yourself) telling you that they have felt the Touch of God is direct evidence for the proposition that the person had felt the Touch of God. That in turn leads to an inference "there is a God", because that follows.

You wouldn't accept that - fair enough. Your perogative.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't really care. I don't have to accept it for either of us to live a happy life. His beliefs don't impinge on my life. I'd just say 'Good day to you, sir and have a great day.'
 
Last edited:

Back
Top