God doesn't exist - discuss

AlpineExile said:
So you wouldn't/don't consider it as evidence that said person had actually felt the touch of god (what god? who the fuck knows, of course)?
Click to expand...
The "his words" bit was taking about @JonMc use of Touch of God, which is what I thought you getting excited about.

It appears I misunderstood.

If someone said "I have felt the Touch of God etc", I would consider that it was evidence. When deciding if something is evidence for a proposition, we are concerned with what it shows if it is accepted.

Where the evidence is accepted or not is about weight.
 


stapler said:
The "his words" bit was taking about @JonMc use of Touch of God, which is what I thought you getting excited about.

It appears I misunderstood.

If someone said "I have felt the Touch of God etc", I would consider that it was evidence. When deciding if something is evidence for a proposition, we are concerned with what it shows if it is accepted.

Where the evidence is accepted or not is about weight.
Click to expand...
Consider it evidence for what?
 
AlpineExile said:
Evidence that they have actually felt the touch of god? Really?

PS Why do you capitalise both Touch and God if you're 'just asking questions'?
Click to expand...
Yes. Because something is evidence if it supports the proposition, assuming it is accepted.

Someone saying "X happened" is always evidence for the proposition X happened.

I capitalised Touch of God because I was directly quoting @JonMc in post 252.
Night night gentlemen. I will pray for you all tonight.
 
Last edited:
stapler said:
Sorry but your proposition, that people's beliefs are the result of some kind of evidence or thought is just not not right. 1. 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.

2. .I do for 2 reasons.

3. 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.

4. 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
Click to expand...
1. Yes, I know. I said that in the post you quoted! A belief and a conclusion are synonymous btw. A belief is a conclusion about a proposition - which you yourself acknowledged 2 posts ago. If you believe in God, you have concluded that the proposition 'God exists' is true or likely true.

2. Right, so you do believe it for specific reasons, as does everyone for everything. It just so happens that those reasons in this instance, are fallacious.

3. This has nothing to do with 'epistemological rigour' that you claim to value, and everything to do with Pascal's Wager - which is itself, nonsense for several reasons (I can't go into that, if you like) You can't believe 'what you like' - you can express that, but that simply isn't true. I can't simply choose to start believing that I'm an invisible flying piglet. You don't 'choose' your beliefs in that simplistic sense at all.

4. You don't know what any of the disciples actually said, because you don't have any access to them. I never said Jesus didn't exist as a person, either. Additionally, Nero didn't target Christians for persecution in general - in fact very few emperors did - he used the Christians as scapegoats specifically in Rome at a very specific point in time, to distract from his own failings. They weren't sought out because of Christianity per se, they were just a convenient, distrusted group to point at during a crisis. There was no widespread persecution at all under Nero, nor Domitian, nor Trajan. There definitely was under Diocletian, but that's centuries later. Also under Decius a tad earlier. Its complicated though, because persecution often occurred because of the mechanisms of the Empire, and often occurred at local level rather than any top-down decree. I can recommend several books on this, and I studied under a couple of the authors.

But this is you making all kinds of assumptions that are unjustified. Even if they were, there are countless better explanations of ancient Chinese whispers from decades after the events involving illiterate fishermen in Galilee, accounts of which was written down between 40 and 70 years later by non-eyewitnesses, in different countries by educated Greek-speakers people with the goal of converting people, having heard it themselves from people wishing to convert them (ad infinitum) than the explanation 'therefore God exists and Jesus rose from the dead'. That's a preposterous conclusion, that doesn't follow.
 
Last edited:
Ilios said:
Nero didn't target Christians for persecution in general - in fact very few emperors did - he used the Christians as scapegoats specifically in Rome at a very specific point in time, to distract from his own failings. They weren't sought out because of Christianity per se, they were just a convenient, distrusted group to point at during a crisis.
Click to expand...
There's no evidence - outside Christian so-called sources - that Nero even knew about Christians nevermind persecuted them.

In fact, archaeologists have been unable to find any EVIDENCE of any major fire in Rome during the reign of Nero.
 
JonMc said:
Me personally? Respect. I'm an agnostic atheist but I was born a Catholic which means I might not believe in God but I'm still a little scared of Him.
Click to expand...

Don’t be scared Marra… take the final step to freedom!

Fuck all the gods (maybe, except the nice ones which seem to be lasses coincidentally )
 
AlpineExile said:
There's no evidence - outside Christian so-called sources - that Nero even knew about Christians nevermind persecuted them.

In fact, archaeologists have been unable to find any EVIDENCE of any major fire in Rome during the reign of Nero.
Click to expand...
There is, to be fair. Tacitus and Suetonius both outright state it.
 
Ilios said:
1. Yes, I know. I said that in the post you quoted! A belief and a conclusion are synonymous btw. A belief is a conclusion about a proposition - which you yourself acknowledged 2 posts ago. If you believe in God, you have concluded that the proposition 'God exists' is true or likely true.

2. Right, so you do believe it for specific reasons, as does everyone for everything. It just so happens that those reasons in this instance, are fallacious.

3. This has nothing to do with 'epistemological rigour' that you claim to value, and everything to do with Pascal's Wager - which is itself, nonsense for several reasons (I can't go into that, if you like) You can't believe 'what you like' - you can express that, but that simply isn't true. I can't simply choose to start believing that I'm an invisible flying piglet. You don't 'choose' your beliefs in that simplistic sense at all.

4. You don't know what any of the disciples actually said, because you don't have any access to them. I never said Jesus didn't exist as a person, either. Additionally, Nero didn't target Christians for persecution in general - in fact very few emperors did - he used the Christians as scapegoats specifically in Rome at a very specific point in time, to distract from his own failings. They weren't sought out because of Christianity per se, they were just a convenient, distrusted group to point at during a crisis. There was no widespread persecution at all under Nero, nor Domitian, nor Trajan. There definitely was under Diocletian, but that's centuries later. Also under Decius a tad earlier. Its complicated though, because persecution often occurred because of the mechanisms of the Empire, and often occurred at local level rather than any top-down decree. I can recommend several books on this, and I studied under a couple of the authors.

But this is you making all kinds of assumptions that are unjustified. Even if they were, there are countless better explanations of ancient Chinese whispers from decades after the events involving illiterate fishermen in Galilee, accounts of which was written down between 40 and 70 years later by non-eyewitnesses, in different countries by educated Greek-speakers people with the goal of converting people, having heard it themselves from people wishing to convert them (ad infinitum) than the explanation 'therefore God exists and Jesus rose from the dead'. That's a preposterous conclusion, that doesn't follow.
Click to expand...
I think I'll have to leave it there on the ethics of belief, as your statements - like "A belief and a conclusion are synonymous" and "You don't 'choose' your beliefs in that simplistic sense at all." are not correct (the former) or are very controversial subjects (the latter).

My beliefs are not relevant to the question of whether there is zero or some evidence for the existence of God or not. The pile-on to drag in and criticise my beliefs was expected, but they aren't relevant.

A holy book is evidence for the existence of God if, assuming that it is true, it supports the existence of God. (Most of them do. )

All the rest, the critique of the age of the texts, the lack of attribution, the inability to test what is said, the problems with changes made in oral traditions etc, are all questions about the weight to be given to the evidence. It may be that on reflection, the answer is "none at all", or it may not.

The last two paragraphs are correct whether I am a stone cold atheist or the Archbishop of York.

Anyway, I definitely have to go to bed now.
 
stapler said:
I think I'll have to leave it there on the ethics of belief, as your statements - like "A belief and a conclusion are synonymous" and "You don't 'choose' your beliefs in that simplistic sense at all." are not correct (the former) or are very controversial subjects (the latter).
Click to expand...
'...belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case. A subjective attitude is a mental state of having some stance, take, or opinion about something.[1] In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false.[2] To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white".'

There are several concepts of belief within philosophy, but the one I gave you is implicit within the normative definition very widely held and used in philosophical literature.
stapler said:
No. That doesn't follow at all.
Click to expand...
Why not? The murderer had hands, I have hands. Why am I not a suspect?
 
Last edited:
It's a form of brainwashing and population control at the end of the day. I do admire it's power and influence though. I'm talking about all religions.
 
Mick666 said:
Hello

Being a dull with no real persona of my own ... I got to thinking about the existence of God and all the great Philosophers, Scholars and Theologians of the ages who couldn't come to a conclusion on this thorny issue. So I decided to blow them all out of the water over lunch time. The basic preposition largely hinges on the definition of God.

When I was getting belted to sh@t off the nuns at primary school I do seem to remember having it imprinted on me that God knew everything and could do anything and everything and knew and could do everything all at the same time. There nothing he doesn't know or can't do.

In that case , if we accept the argument above, then if we can find one thing God can't do then he can't be God.

In that case I postulate that 'God doesn't exist as there is one thing he can't do. He can't 'think' as he already knows the answer. Therefore, if he can't think he can't be a god therefore God doesn't exist'.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
God can't get Sunderland a centre forward.
Therefore he doesn't exist.
 
Religion is a very different matter to Faith / Spirituality / Belief etc

Religion being the political tool to control masses and particular parts of society etc

Personally I think it is interesting to view the gods people create and with the Greeks you can even chart the sophistication of their gods maturing as they became more civilised. I think that what different peoples call god is pretty much the same thing which is a particularly Catholic view I know. I don't subscribe to any religion but I do have some faith in the Anima Mundi which is kind of karma based in that we are all responsible for what we put out into the world and collectively what is put out by everyone creates its own entity if you like. Not sentient, not judgemental but bigger than us and that la
 

Back
Top