Kho said
I think people would think that an impressive display of modern CGI technology. Quite nifty, but not sufficient. You must realise, Boerd, that miracles do not lead to belief and faith. It is a process which requires reflection and thought. Miracles help us along, but they are by no means a must.

Believe me, I am aware. I am using this to illustrate a point

Note: We've hit the faith-zone. I can't argue definite on faith-based arguments, I try to avoid them for that reason, or take the high road and claim universalism and peace.

It's why I'll argue against, say, religion and government going hand in hand, not whether or not someone is allowed to believe in something. After all, the same laws that protect their belief protect my non-belief. It would be self-destructive to demand anything less than tolerance.

But... Lets see where this goes anyway.

Kho said While I agree the test which is set by the Abrahamic God (if we assume he is the same God in the sense that they all believe in this test) is a very difficult one, I wouldn't say it is impossible, there are numerous ways of coming to an answer, and there is nothing to say any are wrong or right.

Think for a moment about what what has just been said in this section before we continue to the rest. It's very malleable--that is, it's very... Non-concrete, lacking any sort of force or specific idea. Essentially: You're saying that there are numerous potential answers and that any of those options could be right or wrong, in any kind of combination.

The Bible, on the other hand, is the piece I'm arguing against generally here. It's very concrete in its answers--believe in God or else burn in purgatory is a repeated message throughout. I can't argue against all religion because I just don't think I could learn the details of every single one and then form some kind of argument. Only the ones I know, can I argue.

Kho said The point of a test is we only ever know that once it is done.

Erm, no. A test can easily be given to you for you to solve. School gives out plenty of tests, for example, that blatantly state "TEST [subject] ##" on them.

Now while there are tests whose point is not to be revealed until the end, the idea that life is a test, is merely belief. There's no evidence to back that up and so, as someone who places his faith in the rational, I can't accept it. I won't even try to deny others who see it that way, because faith-based arguments are unassailable and it's foolhardy to try, but I myself... Just can't.

Kho said On your second two points, the issue of free will vs. destiny is enormous, if we were to delve into that it would take a long time. Maybe when I am not half asleep, but I agree with you that it does appear contradictory, though there are those who would be more than happy to tell us how they don't - and I certainly don't mind exploring the arguments when I have time to write.

Oh, even putting aside religion, the argument of free will versus destiny or human nature or memory is absolutely mind numbing even if you do know all the factors in play (which I openly admit I generally don't). For example: Hard determinism versus soft determinism, Tabula Rasa, nature versus nurture, the two door paradox, choice versus knowledge...

What I -do- know, though, is this: If the future is premapped, that is, if someone can see into the future with any sort of certainty (a qualification for omniscience), then free will is merely an illusion, in the same sense that no matter how many times you watch Frodo reach Mount Doom he will never be able to change the fact that he will succumb to wearing the ring and then have his finger bitten off for it. After that it becomes the argument of hard determinism versus soft determinism, that is, do you have any flexibility in how you reach your ultimate course, can you change your course once you know it, and so on and so on.

Ironically this is why the ending of Bioshock Infinite tends to confuse people who don't understand that it's a significant plot hole, because the universe constantly tells you that it's hard determined and yet the future changes. Oops.

Kho said We must take into account that while the reward in the after life is eternal, the Abrahamic faiths, and their various sects, actually differ on whether punishment is eternal or has a fixed time before God forgives the 'wrong-doers.'

Also depending on the version. Some Bibles just go "they go to hell and burn" some add "eternally". I don't know enough about Biblical history to know why that is. Mine tends to be limited to major events, like the separation of the catholic and orthodox churches, the rise of islam, protestantism, the great awakening in north america, and so on.

Kho said Thus non-eternal crimes, certain interpretations would argue, are punished with non-eternal 'sentences.'As for evidences, that is really a personal matter.

Eh'... Evidence isn't really personal. Evidence is as non-personal as it gets: If the evidence points to the innocent looking woman committing a murder, then 99 times out of 100, it's probably the woman who did it assuming the evidence isn't rigged.

One can have personal reasons, but evidence, as in defined as something that all can see and universally understand (ex: fingerprints), is never personal.

Kho said I outlined how I believe the closest thing to the scientific method/process can be used on the God issue, and as long as we live we'll just research and learn more till we are convinced for or against. It is a life long journey which we should never close at any stage in our lives, because then we allow for stubbornness and intolerance of different viewpoints to set-in, which is never good, and I am glad to see you're quite open to acknowledging another view.

Why yes, good chap, that is a healthy view of things. It's why I stick to the rational, I know things will change as our understanding of the universe grows and that makes it extremely exciting. Maybe we'll find out our creators were really unisex aliens who made us to figure out what would happen if you created creatures with two genders and biologically made them different. Or maybe there is a god but he's not this all wise and omniscient god, maybe he's like... A child and he created this... Fantastical, fantasy-like universe, and maybe all those mythological stories we have of like dragons and faeries and so on were all once real but he retconned them over time and the mythos is all we have left of the non-canon stuff, and people who go to heaven are his friends who tell him about mortality and pain and emotions and feelings and weakness and things he can't intrinsically understand.

All really interesting shit I can't disprove but won't believe until otherwise proven, though.

So Boerd said
Of course. Let me make up some possible evidence... In this hypothetical, suppose there was a hand which materialized out of air and wrote "I am God" on the nearest available surface to them at the same time all over the world. Some instances were videotaped, however they can't make the hand appear again. Is this sufficient?

Nope. It's not repeatable. Ergo, not scientific.

Plus, the source isn't necessarily a god. To quote one of Clarke's three laws: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. I'm sure if you brought me back in time with a laptop to the medieval age, I could amaze them with my ability to instantly resolve any kind of mathematical equation with the calculator application in Windows.

mdk said
sorry. Just my way of saying this isn't really a controversial topic anymore, and hasn't been for 250 years or more; everybody agrees, and setting it up as an argumentative topic is a fallacious premise.

Who's laughing now?!!

Vortex said
Who's laughing now?!!

A lot of people who for some reason still read this thread and expect anything different.

Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming? How about "If I rob a bank, I will be punished"? "If I go to this new job, they will pay me." All these things, which have MATERIAL consequences for believing them (For example, you must lose a proven source of income for the new job, and you only have the word of a handful of non-scientists to attest that they will pay you), you accept as fact on much sparser evidence. Why can't you accept a vague conclusion with no ramifications on your life on infinitely stronger evidence?

Because you're not rational. Your train of thought is not "There is no evidence, therefore I don't believe in God", it is, "I do not believe in God, therefore there is no evidence."

So Boerd said Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?

Considering there is plenty of evidence for it, yes. Do I think it will end the world? No. Will it end us? Probably not. We're dimwitted but rarely apocalyptic-levels, and this particular apocalypse is easy to see coming and evade.

As it stands the world needs a lot of oil and what not anyway. Dropping it would only hurt our ability to sustain our massively increasing population which would in turn hurt the planet anyway. So I vote for the way that speeds up technological progress and gets us closer to a future where we can deal with the problems we bring upon ourselves.

So Boerd said How about "If I rob a bank, I will be punished"?

It's a logical conclusion. Ninety nine times out of a hundred if I rob a bank and do nothing to escape I will be punished. There is plenty of evidence for this.

So Boerd said "If I go to this new job, they will pay me."

It would be illegal for them not to, so... Yes.

So Boerd said All these things, which have MATERIAL consequences for believing them (For example, you must lose a proven source of income for the new job, and you only have the word of a handful of non-scientists to attest that they will pay you), you accept as fact on much sparser evidence.

Actually there is plenty of evidence and the comparison is invalid. Employers have a motivation to pay me, because if they don't, I will leave, and their reputation will be ruined. Also, you know, breaking the law because legally binding contracts and labour laws. Societies have incentives to catch bank robbers because it would cause instability in the economy and cause many hundreds of people to lose their hard earned money which allows them to live.

So Boerd said Why can't you accept a vague conclusion with no ramifications on your life on infinitely stronger evidence?

It has immense ramifications on my life to believe in a deity that tells me to kill people for working on Sunday.

So Boerd said Because you're not rational. Your train of thought is not "There is no evidence, therefore I don't believe in God", it is, "I do not believe in God, therefore there is no evidence."

No. There is no evidence, so I do not believe in God. I'm sorry that you feel you must resort to a personal attack though. I'm sure your God's attitude about not judging people lest ye be judged will be quite happy with you doing this.

I said A God, not the Christian god. Belief in A God, as non descript as the one whose existence was hypothetically proven by the hypothetical evidence.

It's a logical conclusion. Ninety nine times out of a hundred if I rob a bank and do nothing to escape I will be punished. There is plenty of evidence for this.

Show me. Just know I won't take anyone's word for it. I need to see it with my own eyes. That is the standard you have established.

Considering there is plenty of evidence for it, yes.

How do you know there is evidence?

So Boerd said I said A God, not the Christian god. Belief in A God, as non descript as the one whose existence was hypothetically proven by the hypothetical evidence.

And as I've already said, there is none.

So Boerd said Show me. Just know I won't take anyone's word for it. I need to see it with my own eyes. That is the standard you have established.

Bank robber captured, and you can easily find and verify it by finding the person's name, where they are located, video records of the event, judicial records on what evidence was brought to prove the bank robber was captured, and so on.

Also, as I've said before which you conveniently ignore: The more ridiculous a claim, the more evidence is required to prove it. I don't need you to prove your friend Susie exists, I'll take your word for it, there are a lot of people named Susie on the planet. I do need evidence if you claim Susie can bend a spoon with her mind, or make people instantly com-bust with her mind, or fly through the air without any mechanical assistance, and so on.

So Boerd said How do you know there is evidence?

... Because there is none. There is literally none. Zero. Zip. Nothing. It doesn't exist. The whole point of religion is the faith part of it. That's what makes it religion and not truth: Faith. If you need evidence to back up your faith you're doing it wrong.

Seriously I can't prove nothingness except to point at it and say "look, nothing."

EDIT

Come to think of it, Russell's Teapot. Look it up.

Also, as I've said before which you conveniently ignore: The more ridiculous a claim, the more evidence is required to prove it. I don't need you to prove your friend Susie exists, I'll take your word for it, there are a lot of people named Susie on the planet. I do need evidence if you claim Susie can bend a spoon with her mind, or make people instantly com-bust with her mind, or fly through the air without any mechanical assistance, and so on.

How decidedly irrational. Using a purely subjective and opinionated judgement to determine how much proof is needed? Irrational indeed. Ridiculousness varies wildly from person to person. A rational iindividual would stack consequence against evidence.

Bank robber captured, and you can easily find and verify it by finding the person's name, where they are located, video records of the event, judicial records on what evidence was brought to prove the bank robber was captured, and so on

I offered you stronger evidence for God im the hypothetical, so no, that will not do.

Not observing something does not mean it does not exist, it means you have not observed it.

So Boerd said How decidedly irrational. Using a purely subjective and opinionated judgement to determine how much proof is needed? Irrational indeed.

#1: You appear to be angry. Calm down.

#2: Subjective? Opinionated? Strong words that ultimately make no sense in this context. I'm stating that the more "out there" a claim is, the more evidence is required for me to believe it. The more fantastical something is, the more evidence I need. Lots of people named Susie? Easy to believe. Susie being the one person on the planet capable of instantly combusting people with her mind? Much harder to believe, requires more evidence.

So Boerd said Ridiculousness varies wildly from person to person. A rational iindividual would stack consequence against evidence.

God created the world in seven days. That has pretty significant consequences. So I need more evidence. No evidence. Funny that.

Apply the same logic to pretty much every other God claim on the planet for whatever fantastical things they did.

So Boerd said I offered you stronger evidence for God im the hypothetical, so no, that will not do.

What?... Hypothetical is not evidence. The Bank Robber physically exists. He was captured. You can go see him. Right now. Your hypothetical does not exist, it's purely hyperbole, in the same vein as saying that elves exist because forests do and elves live in forests. Can you disprove that?

So Boerd said
Not observing something does not mean it does not exist, it means you have not observed it.

Not observing =/= no evidence.

I have not personally observed an emu, but I know they exist, because there's plenty of evidence for them if I go look them up.

On the flip side, until I know something exists, until there's evidence for it, according to the rational world view, it doesn't exist... Yet. If someone has eye witness testimony of something, then it's logical to go see if it's true. If it is, then it exists. Adjust world view to include it. Move forward.

There are plenty of claims about a god existing, and yet, no evidence. So I feel no need to adjust my world view to include it. Move forward.

Again, as I've said before, I'm not afraid to be wrong. If it turns out there's evidence for a god we haven't found yet, and we discover it, then I will do the rational thing: Adjust world view, include a god, move on. However, I don't live in the future, I live in the present. There is no evidence for a god. Ergo, do not include god. Move on.

Subjective? Opinionated? Strong words that ultimately make no sense in this context. I'm stating that the more "out there" a claim is, the more evidence is required for me to believe it. The more fantastical something is, the more evidence I need.

>States subjective has no bearing

>Proceeds to use a subjective criteria.

God created the world in seven days. That has pretty significant consequences.

I said a non-descript God, not the Christian God in the hypothetical. As far as the hypothetical, l asked you if you would believe in a God if every scientist on this planet said he did. You said no. I am now applying that level of evidence to your claim that bank robbers are punished. Per your standard of evidence, no volume of authoritative sources is sufficient.

So Boerd said >States subjective has no bearing>Proceeds to use a subjective criteria.

There is nothing subjective about measuring the fantastical quality of something. Here, let me show you.

There are lots of people named Susie in the world. The only barrier to my belief of your friend being named Susie is believing that someone would be named Susie and that someone is your friend. To believe that any god exists, I have to suspend my disbelief and believe that there is a being with omnipotence and potentially omniscience who created the entirety of everything, then left no evidence behind whatsoever, for no apparent reason except to ask me to worship them. This just opens up so many unanswered "why" questions. Why worship? Why do they need my worship? Why do they need me to believe them to be real without any evidence? Why this, why that, why why why~

Claiming a god exists is a fantastical claim and requires fantastical evidence, of which there is none. That is about as rational as it gets: It's down to a pure mathematical level of logic. If X value is Y, it requires Z quantity/quality of evidence. It does not get more rational than that.

So Boerd said I said a non-descript God, not the Christian God in the hypothetical. As far as the hypothetical, l asked you if you would believe in a God if every scientist on this planet said he did. You said no. I am now applying that level of evidence to your claim that bank robbers are punished. Per your standard of evidence, no volume of authoritative sources is sufficient.

Brovo said Apply the same logic to pretty much every other God claim on the planet for whatever fantastical things they did.

I said no if they didn't have any evidence. But then you're using a broken example anyway: The only reason every scientist on the planet would proclaim the existence of a deity is if they had significant, unbeatable, unparalleled evidence for it.

Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence. That goes completely contradictory to everything science stands for. Here, a perfect example of what I mean: If every single priest on the planet simultaneously declared there was no god, would you stop believing in god?

Brovo said
There is nothing subjective about measuring the fantastical quality of something. Here, let me show you.There are lots of people named Susie in the world. The only barrier to my belief of your friend being named Susie is believing that someone would be named Susie and that someone is your friend. To believe that any god exists, I have to suspend my disbelief and believe that there is a being with omnipotence and potentially omniscience who created the entirety of everything, then left no evidence behind whatsoever, for no apparent reason except to ask me to worship them. This just opens up so many unanswered "why" questions. Why worship? Why do they need my worship? Why do they need me to believe them to be real without any evidence? Why this, why that, why why why~Claiming a god exists is a fantastical claim and requires fantastical evidence, of which there is none. That is about as rational as it gets: It's down to a pure mathematical level of logic. If X value is Y, it requires Z quantity/quality of evidence. It does not get more rational than that.I said no . But then you're using a broken example anyway: The only reason every scientist on the planet would proclaim the existence of a deity is if they had significant, unbeatable, unparalleled evidence for it.Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence. That goes completely contradictory to everything science stands for. Here, a perfect example of what I mean: If every single priest on the planet simultaneously declared there was no god, would you stop believing in god?

No, I would not, however, I don't pretend to be rational.

Now you claim there is some objective way to demonstrate fantasy and not only that, a quantifiable way. What are those parameters? What prevents me from deciding that a giant hole in space is more ridiculous than an enormous invisible bear who moves things in the patterns scientists have seen? I have never seen space holes, but I have seen bears and I know they can move things.

Essentially speaking: You're using a strawman example. There is no world in which every scientist would believe something without evidence.

I said they could not reproduce it, not that they had no evidence.

So Boerd said No, I would not, however, I don't pretend to be rational.

We didn't start the fiiire~

So Boerd said Now you claim there is some objective way to demonstrate fantasy and not only that, a quantifiable way. What are those parameters?

Already gave you them. The more things I have to believe to believe the claim and the more it defies common logic, the greater the evidence has to be in order for me to believe it. Lots of Susies versus Susie being able to light people on fire with her mind. I'm not sure what you find confusing about that.

So Boerd said What prevents me from deciding that a giant hole in space is more ridiculous than an enormous invisible bear who moves things in the patterns scientists have seen?

The fact that there is evidence for giant holes in space that suck things in. Very observable evidence. That you can observe. At any time you want to. While the giant invisible bear has no observable evidence, and therefore, well... You know I could say the same thing twenty times but I don't think you care to listen.

So Boerd said I have never seen space holes, but I have seen bears and I know they can move things.

But no bears have ever been invisible, and we've never found a bear with the capacity to turn invisible.

And you probably have seen a space hole. It's called a black hole. One is at the centre of our galaxy. It eats things that get too close to it. It has a giant fuck off gravity well that even eats light. It's actually extremely visible because of this.

I don't have telescopes strong enough, I have to rely on the word of others, and their potentially doctored images.

The more things I have to believe to believe the claim and the more it defies common logic

Why can't I say anything I want defies common logic? All sorts of scientific knowledge which relies on mathematics far too incomprehensible to me which I cannot understand, for evidence. Am I rational to disbelieve those?

So, since some people need proof for God's existence. Let's have a hypothetical situation where we know God exist, something like "We now live in Shin Megami Tensei" What would happen then? What would the people do?

Alphakoka said
So, since some people need proof for God's existence. Let's have a hypothetical situation where we know God exist, something like "We now live in Shin Megami Tensei" What would happen then? What would the people do?

As someone who somewhat believes in God now, I'd imagine the next step would be people challenging God and God's authority.

There's a lot of rules that have to be established with suddenly everyone knowing that God exists. Does that mean we can communicate with them? Can we see God and what they do for/to the world? If God were to make himself apparent, they would have a lot to answer for.