[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by .eXe)
No lol, I really think people need to start reading with some shred of logic in their minds.

If I say something like: theists are insane!

Does that automatically mean that I believe every single theist in the world past, present and future is insane? Or does that mean that in a general sense, I find them to be insane?

For you to think that I believe all theists are flawless is quite juvenile to be honest. No one speaks in such absolutes and if they do, certainly do not mean it.

You need to be more careful with what you say. It's quite important otherwise it just oozes an unnecessary bias towards theists.

[.eXe]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
You need to be more careful with what you say. It's quite important otherwise it just oozes an unnecessary bias towards theists.

To be honest I argue a lot more against muslims than against atheists. So I don't know how you've gotten this impression that I think theists are infallible.

I argue with muslims...they are theists. How can I possibly believe that theists are perfect....I argue with them all day long!!

See the problem?

However, point taken.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
There is no agree to disagree here. At no point have theists claimed any scientific proof for God.

However, atheists continue to say that God does not exist...ONLY because there is no scientific proof.

You see, the issue lies with the atheists not with theists. So why should I agree to disagree, I haven't done anything wrong nor have I said anything ignorant based on the lack of ONE specific type of evidence.

It is you who is doing that.

Look, we had an almost identical argument less than a month ago. I don't listen to arguments with no falsifiable evidence, and you will not listen to my view.

A debate is between two parties that, if one party is shown to be correct, the other party is open to changing its mind. Without falsifiable evidence, you will not be changing my mind, and I don't think any amount of evidence will change yours.

Ergo, lets not waste each others time, and agree to disagree.

[M^2012]

(Original post by ilovelabradors)
And if that was the case he could show up on telly and tell killers not to kill, rapists not rape, hopeless people not to commit suicide, etc etc. If there is a God he is doing a terrible job.

Perhaps, or perhaps there is a reason why he shouldn't do. Perhaps we are totally misunderstanding the whole concept.

[brittanna]

No, because God doesn't exist.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Look, we had an almost identical argument less than a month ago. I don't listen to arguments with no falsifiable evidence, and you will not listen to my view.

A debate is between two parties that, if one party is shown to be correct, the other party is open to changing its mind. Without falsifiable evidence, you will not be changing my mind, and I don't think any amount of evidence will change yours.

Ergo, lets not waste each others time, and agree to disagree.

You don't listen to arguments without falsifiable evidence.

I don't form opinions based on the lack of a specific type of evidence.

There is nothing to disagree on because I don't disagree with your view of not accepting non-falsifiable evidence. It is equally valid an opinion as the one I hold.

But the point of a debate is to explore those beliefs further. I want to know why it is that falsifiability is an absolute requirement for you?

Doesn't that just make things fallible? Why would you want to believe in a God that is scientifically explainable...and thus fallible?

Isn't your requirement sort of self-defeating?

[.eXe]

(Original post by brittanna)
No, because God doesn't exist.

Why not?

[doggyfizzel]

Quite simply it could. If God has the influence on our world religions claim he does, science will find it. If something interacts with anything it can be tested for, directly or indirectly. There is such a huge array of scientific equipment now, detecting everything and anything sooner or later interaction will be detected.

Unless of course we are talking about the supernatural, basically bull**** which can't be tested for because its magic/non-existant anywhere other than your head.

[Beeny]

yes

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
You don't listen to arguments without falsifiable evidence.

I don't form opinions based on the lack of a specific type of evidence.

There is nothing to disagree on because I don't disagree with your view of not accepting non-falsifiable evidence. It is equally valid an opinion as the one I hold.

But the point of a debate is to explore those beliefs further. I want to know why it is that falsifiability is an absolute requirement for you?

Doesn't that just make things fallible? Why would you want to believe in a God that is scientifically explainable...and thus fallible?

Isn't your requirement sort of self-defeating?

Well, I'm not comfortable with the idea of an infallible anything.

To take a quote from Hitch, if I wanted that, I'd move to North Korea.

As for the bolded, if that is the case, do you also believe in bigfoot? No evidence for them either, but if not, then you are making a biased exception for your particular God.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
Well, I'm not comfortable with the idea of an infallible anything.

To take a quote from Hitch, if I wanted that, I'd move to North Korea.

As for the bolded, if that is the case, do you also believe in bigfoot? No evidence for them either, but if not, then you are making a biased exception for your particular God.

Sir, that is hardly a convincing argument.

Basically you just said that you don't believe in God, because you don't like the idea of God...or to quote you, you are "not comfortable" with the idea of God.

That is hardly an objective analysis. Why are you even on a debate forum?

You don't believe in God based on some personal fear of the infallible, rather than some intellectual or philosophical reflection.

Such a dangerous game to play...to reject something based entirely on belief.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
Sir, that is hardly a convincing argument.

Basically you just said that you don't believe in God, because you don't like the idea of God...or to quote you, you are "not comfortable" with the idea of God.

That is hardly an objective analysis. Why are you even on a debate forum?

You don't believe in God based on some personal fear of the infallible, rather than some intellectual or philosophical reflection.

Such a dangerous game to play...to reject something based entirely on belief.

No, I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. I've already defined that as falsifiable evidence, so don't ask me "what is the nature of the evidence you seek?"

If I did still believe, I would not be comfortable with the idea.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Alpharius)
No, I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. I've already defined that as falsifiable evidence, so don't ask me "what is the nature of the evidence you seek?"

If I did still believe, I would not be comfortable with the idea.

Based on your prior response I would say pretty confidently that you don't believe in God because of convenience and are using science to somehow bolster your argument.

If science alone were capable of removing belief in God then there would be no theist scientists.

[Alpharius]

(Original post by .eXe)
Based on your prior response I would say pretty confidently that you don't believe in God because of convenience and are using science to somehow bolster your argument.

If science alone were capable of removing belief in God then there would be no theist scientists.

I was about to say believe what you want, but you already do.

[doggyfizzel]

I'm not sure what argument goes on here, but God cannot be wholly supernatural. The world we live in is the natural world, to be relevant and by that I mean to have any influence on our world, God must interact with the natural world. Anything that interacts with the natural world can be tested for regardless of it source. It may lead to an unexplainable source but you would have something that couldn't be accounted for.

[AFE95]

After skimming through these posts, there's been no talk of deists. Surely in the eyes of a deist, God has to remain supernatural and away from our universe in order to not interfere with the workings of it?

[kthompson85]

(Original post by G8D)
No, god doesn't exist.

My god is alien and pretty sure science is pretty close to finding life elsewhere, and hopefully intelligent life :P

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

GUYS THINK OF THIS FOR A SECOND

Suppose an inventor invents a machine.

If we test that machine (without knowing anything about the inventor) and put it through stringent scientific tests, would scientists be able to find out the:

Identity of the inventor?

What he looked like?

How old he was?

How he come about?

Or anything else for that matter?

The logical answer would be NO. Simply because the inventor is not contained in the invention he created, he/she is rather outside it, if you catch my drift.

Similarly God, being the supreme creator of the whole universe, would not be contained in his creation. In other words, the evidence for God cannot be tested by mealy observing or testing his invention (i.e. the universe).

Now if we look through history, you can pretty much figure it out that God knowing this to be true (the fact that it’s impossible for us as the most intelligent beings of his creation to find out about him) has always communicated with through his revelations. Now for any thinking human being with an open mind, that should be clear enough reason to recognise and pay homage our creator.

[tooosh]

(Original post by ThinkB4Uwrite)
GUYS THINK OF THIS FOR A SECOND

Suppose an inventor invents a machine.

If we test that machine (without knowing anything about the inventor) and put it through stringent scientific tests, would scientists be able to find out the:

Identity of the inventor?

What he looked like?

How old he was?

How he come about?

Or anything else for that matter?

The logical answer would be NO. Simply because the inventor is not contained in the invention he created, he/she is rather outside it, if you catch my drift.

Similarly God, being the supreme creator of the whole universe, would not be contained in his creation. In other words, the evidence for God cannot be tested by mealy observing or testing his invention (i.e. the universe).

Now if we look through history, you can pretty much figure it out that God knowing this to be true (the fact that it’s impossible for us as the most intelligent beings of his creation to find out about him) has always communicated with through his revelations. Now for any thinking human being with an open mind, that should be clear enough reason to recognise and pay homage our creator.

That argument depends on two things:
The existence of these revelations
A deductive link between these revelations and God which rules out all other possiblities

[ThinkB4Uwrite]

(Original post by tooosh)
That argument depends on two things:
The existence of these revelations
A deductive link between these revelations and God which rules out all other possiblities

The thing is that these revelations already exist, but the problem is distinguishing facts from non facts in their contents and that's where the human mind with all its intelligence comes in to kind of see through the obvious facts from the non facts.