LogFAQs > #876825556

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	There is literally no reason NOT to believe in God.
Dash_Harber 04/08/17 10:29:48 PM #64:	au_gold posted... What is your evidence against the existence of a deity? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, stating the existence of something is the claim, and disagreeing with that claim is not a claim in itself. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with thousands of years of philosophy on discourse. au_gold posted... Except Bigfoot isn't credited as being the creator of mankind in The Bible. Well then, there is literally no reason to not believe in Krishna, or Odin, or Zeus, or Baron Samedi, or Amon Ra, or any of the other deities. What makes that God so uniquely deserving of belief? The belief in that god is mutually exclusive with many of the other ones, so why pick him only? Also, importantly, which interpretation of him do you choose? There are three main ones, and hundreds of different versions of those ones. au_gold posted... Sounds like projection or displacement ITP. I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before this topic; it just seems illogical to deny the existence of an all-powerful being when there's absolutely no evidence to prove that one doesn't exist. Again, look up burden of proof. au_gold posted... Why not be on the safe side just in case? Because in all likelhood, that God wouldn't appreciate you lying about your belief in him to hedge your bets anyway. au_gold posted... God has always existed. Technically, He exists as a 10-dimensional being so the concept of time for Him is incomprehensible to us. According to you, about one interpretation. Why do you only choose that intrepretation of that god? <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:876825556] in There is l... [t:75211791]...</cite> <quote><cite>au_gold posted...</cite> <quote> What is your evidence against the existence of a deity?</quote> The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. In this case, stating the existence of something is the claim, and disagreeing with that claim is not a claim in itself. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with thousands of years of philosophy on discourse. <cite>au_gold posted...</cite> <quote> Except Bigfoot isn't credited as being the creator of mankind in The Bible.</quote> Well then, there is literally no reason to not believe in Krishna, or Odin, or Zeus, or Baron Samedi, or Amon Ra, or any of the other deities. What makes that God so uniquely deserving of belief? The belief in that god is mutually exclusive with many of the other ones, so why pick him only? Also, importantly, which interpretation of him do you choose? There are three main ones, and hundreds of different versions of those ones. <cite>au_gold posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like projection or displacement ITP. I'd never heard of Pascal's Wager before this topic; it just seems illogical to deny the existence of an all-powerful being when there's absolutely no evidence to prove that one doesn't exist.</quote> Again, look up burden of proof. <cite>au_gold posted...</cite> <quote> Why not be on the safe side just in case?</quote> Because in all likelhood, that God wouldn't appreciate you lying about your belief in him to hedge your bets anyway. <cite>au_gold posted...</cite> <quote> God has always existed. Technically, He exists as a 10-dimensional being so the concept of time for Him is incomprehensible to us.</quote> According to you, about one interpretation. Why do you only choose that intrepretation of that god?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1