Current Events > Do you believe in a god/gods/other spiritual beings?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Toonstrack posted...

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

The difference is that no one was claiming, "Hey these things exist and I discovered it and I call it this," prior to actual evidence being found. The theory of ocean super predators or considering the lineage of modern sharks can lead to evidence or hints of Megalodon existence. Fossils led to Megalodons being proven. Evidence of gravitational perturbations caused by Neptune was used to track it down in the sky and prove its existence.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that a god exists, not for others to provide proof otherwise, from a perspective of logical evidence.

"Proof of non existence" is a failed concept on an open set. I can make the claim, "There is no such thing as a six leaf clover." The only way to prove this is untrue is to go around the world and check every instance of the plant at a minute level of detail, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. Therefore the statement is meaningless. Proof of non existence only works on a closed set, such as, "There is no six leaf clover in this box." If the box's contents can be verified, the statement can then be true.

A person can say they believe in a god, and that is not a fallacious or meaningless statement. But for that same person to say that god is objectively real is a statement that they must then prove. Until it is proven, the statement may or may not be fallacious, but it can be no better than meaningless.

Toonstrack posted...

False equivalence.

You're equating the basic concept of existence/non existence which is indeed a 50/50 to a quantifiable difference in skill and training that applies to LeBron vs you.

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

Saying that something you dont know exists has a 50/50 chance to exist is stupid tho lmao. Thats like saying theres a 50/50 chance that pokmon exist in a different galaxy because we dont know.

I voted Unsure, as an Agnostic Theist. Until a human being literally sees or finds scientific evidence of a god, I am cautiously optimistic. What is a god though? If someone from a Type IV civilization (someone who can teleport through the universe, create worlds and living beings, live forever etc.) shows themselves, sure, thats godlike enough to me, and my answer would become a definite Yes.

I would say that if there is a ... well, OK, let's call it an "extragalactic higher intelligence" ... out there somewhere -- an hypothesis that I'm willing to accept on an intellectual level, but don't personally believe -- then we have about as much hope of comprehending it as goldfish have of comprehending the human world beyond their bowl.

Goldfish know that there are mysterious figures on the other side of the glass wall who sprinkle a handful of fish food flakes onto the surface of the water now and again... But that's about it.

But my view is that all these tribal myths and superstitions from the Bronze Age Near East (which only enjoyed such longevity because in time, they came to be backed by state power) have simply anthropomorphized complex phenomena in an attempt to make sense of natural forces beyond Bronze Age understanding. Who or what makes the sun rise and set? It's an invisible man in the sky. We should have outgrown this primitive shit by now.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Those solid arguments being?

I don't know if there is a god or afterlife and I don't care. I'll just wait and see.

Toonstrack posted...

God can be any number of things, you're pigeonholing it to the abrahamic Christianity God.

I didn't specify at all actually. My logic is sound so long as one is deriving their morality from their religion.

Were not arguing the Bible tho.

Stop bringing up the Bible.

Why? Literally billions of people use this as the basis of their morality. If you want to argue something else as the source of objective morality, please be my guest. If you're gonna be vague AF, don't complain when someone tries to define things a bit more clearly.

So is your claim that objective morality doesn't exist?

I don't believe in objective morality, no. I see nothing to indicate it's a thing a lot of history from cultures across history that implies that things aren't so black and white.

Does that make who gets their way in the right?

Who gets their way on what?

falayyou01 posted...

Nah dont bother.. Its God that guides anyhow. Belief is a choice imbued within the heart. Its either there or its not. Good luck to you all.

I cant argue so im going to appeal to God

Toonstrack posted...

False equivalence.

You're equating the basic concept of existence/non existence which is indeed a 50/50 to a quantifiable difference in skill and training that applies to LeBron vs you.

Hang on, how is existence/non existence a coin flip? This has not been demonstrated at all.

There being no "evidence" isnt itself proof of non-existence. The planet neptune always EXISTED, but there was no evidence to humanity that it existed until they found it. Megalodons always existed, there was no evidence of its existence until we found it.

A lack of evidence isn't evidence of an absence, this is correct. That's not what's happening here though. Theists are asserting their god(s) exist without evidence. Because you can't provide that evidence, atheists are doubting your assertions.

I don't think anyone here has said there are definitively no gods and I think it would be illogical to assume that. However, it's similarly illogical to assume a god(s) exists without some evidence.

From evidence I've observed, I have to conclude that I don't at this moment. It can change, but I doubt it.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I cant argue so im going to appeal to God

not that I cant, but that theres no point. You all are set in your ways and approach the topic not with curiosity to absorb different points of view, but with vehement skepticism about everything and anything. That kind of mindset will have you doubting your own existence.

falayyou01 posted...

not that I cant, but that theres no point. You all are set in your ways.

Just as you are set in yours, no?

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

I cant argue so im going to appeal to God

God of the gaps.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Athiesm hurts just as many people. For example, the USSR.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Just as you are set in yours, no?

to Have faith is to have certainty in the existence of a creator. I am set in my ways because my faith requires it.

falayyou01 posted...

You all are set in your ways and approach the topic not with curiosity to absorb different points of view

This you?

Nah dont bother.. Its God that guides anyhow. Belief is a choice imbued within the heart. Its either there or its not. Good luck to you all.

Heineken14 posted...

This you?

Your point?

Feel like God could be a reasonable proposition but what determines which doctrine is correct? If one religion is right that means all of the rest are wrong, so what makes you think that yours happens to be the singular exception to the rule?

falayyou01 posted...

Your point?

Well if you can't see it.....

falayyou01 posted...

to Have faith is to have certainty in the existence of a creator. I am set in my ways because my faith requires it.

You realise that's circular reasoning, right? You believe in a creator because your faith says you should believe in a creator. You can't also get upset that other people are set in their ways when you are unable to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong in your faith. I'm open to the concept of a god, but I'm too cynical to take it on blind faith, I need some evidence. As I said earlier, I think the idea of a creator looking out for us and giving us the chance of continuing after death sounds really nice. I'd like to believe that.

Dalthine posted...

The difference is that no one was claiming, "Hey these things exist and I discovered it and I call it this," prior to actual evidence being found. The theory of ocean super predators or considering the lineage of modern sharks can lead to evidence or hints of Megalodon existence. Fossils led to Megalodons being proven. Evidence of gravitational perturbations caused by Neptune was used to track it down in the sky and prove its existence.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that a god exists, not for others to provide proof otherwise, from a perspective of logical evidence.

"Proof of non existence" is a failed concept on an open set. I can make the claim, "There is no such thing as a six leaf clover." The only way to prove this is untrue is to go around the world and check every instance of the plant at a minute level of detail, which is impossible from a logical standpoint. Therefore the statement is meaningless. Proof of non existence only works on a closed set, such as, "There is no six leaf clover in this box." If the box's contents can be verified, the statement can then be true.

A person can say they believe in a god, and that is not a fallacious or meaningless statement. But for that same person to say that god is objectively real is a statement that they must then prove. Until it is proven, the statement may or may not be fallacious, but it can be no better than meaningless.

If I tell you I found a seven leafed clover 5 years ago, that statement doesn't mean that if you looked for one now you'd find one, but not being able to produce proof doesn't mean it didn't exist.

As it goes for the argument of evidence, that itself becomes moot when the argument is tantamount to "produce to me physical proof of god" which is also a fallacious ask when you're delving into theory of the universes origin. Its better than simply making a moral appela for God's non existence but... Neptune wasn't discovered because of its affect on earth. Its affect on earth is negligible. It wss actually discovered because of its affect on Uranus.

So, evidence bssixslly didn't exist on earth, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Evidence can exist outside of our purview, outside of our reach, but to definitely claim because we haven't already seen it means god doesn't exist is a fallacy.

reincarnator07 posted...

You realise that's circular reasoning, right? You believe in a creator because your faith says you should believe in a creator. You can't also get upset that other people are set in their ways when you are unable to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong in your faith. I'm open to the concept of a god, but I'm too cynical to take it on blind faith, I need some evidence. As I said earlier, I think the idea of a creator looking out for us and giving us the chance of continuing after death sounds really nice. I'd like to believe that.

I'm not upset; to each their own; ideally just keep the tone civil and don't have an antagonistic tone. That's good that you're open to the concept of God. What form of evidence do you need to convince you of God's existence?

As an agnostic, I appreciate the "Unsure" option.

reincarnator07 posted...

I didn't specify at all actually. My logic is sound so long as one is deriving their morality from their religion.

No literally quoted the Christian Bible, so yes you did specify.

Why?

Because we aren't arguing the merits of Christianity lmao.

I don't believe in objective morality, no. I see nothing to indicate it's a thing a lot of history from cultures across history that implies that things aren't so black and white.

So then, if objective morality doesn't exist then by what authority to we condemn... anyone or any action?

Who gets their way on what?

SOMEONE does. Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?

Toonstrack posted...

So then, if objective morality doesn't exist then by what authority to we condemn... anyone or any action?

General consensus on what we deem to be bad? Are you new to society?

Unknown5uspect posted...

General consensus on what we deem to be bad? Are you new to society?

General consensus from which time period in human history? What makes general consensus in one time period superior to the other? What makes a certain geographical society's laws superior to another one?

reincarnator07 posted...

The problem with the fine tuning argument is that the universe isn't really that well tuned for us. Over 2/3 of our home planet is covered in water, yet we can't even breathe there. Of the land, a third is taken up by deserts, which are hostile to human life. The second we leave Earth, we literally can't breathe, we get cooked by solar radiation and we can't survive on any other planet in our solar system.

In what way are things fine tuned for us?

You're sitting on your ass and typing that shit on a video game message board while chomping down on McGriddles.

Toonstrack posted...

If I tell you I found a seven leafed clover 5 years ago, that statement doesn't mean that if you looked for one now you'd find one, but not being able to produce proof doesn't mean it didn't exist.

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but if all you have is your word then most people aren't going to believe you.

As it goes for the argument of evidence, that itself becomes moot when the argument is tantamount to "produce to me physical proof of god" which is also a fallacious ask when you're delving into theory of the universes origin. Its better than simply making a moral appela for God's non existence but...

The origin of the universe and whether a god exists are actually 2 different questions. Obviously if you're arguing that god created everything then that requires a god to exist, but I see no reason that even if there was a god that it had to create the universe.

Neptune wasn't discovered because of its affect on earth. Its affect on earth is negligible. It wss actually discovered because of its affect on Uranus.

So, evidence bssixslly didn't exist on earth, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Evidence can exist outside of our purview, outside of our reach, but to definitely claim because we haven't already seen it means god doesn't exist is a fallacy.

The observation was made on earth, as were the calculations. So actually, yes the evidence for Uranus was on earth.

Who here is definitively claiming that god doesn't exist?

Lol

"You're all set in your ways and that's bad. I'm set in my ways because 'faith' and that's good. Where's the contradiction?"

Unknown5uspect posted...

General consensus on what we deem to be bad? Are you new to society?

The general consensus of whom? From what period? Of what collective?

The general consensus of practically the entire country of the US was once that slavery was ok. That doesnt mean it was. It very much wasn't.

So clearly, general consensus cannot be an argument for an authority on morality in a fair and just society, because society doesn't always choose the fair snd just option.

So what else then qualifies?

falayyou01 posted...

I'm not upset; to each their own; ideally just keep the tone civil and don't have an antagonistic tone. That's good that you're open to the concept of God. What form of evidence do you need to convince you of God's existence?

That's a fair question that I don't really have a good answer for. The obvious one would be for said god to reveal themselves to me. To use the Abrahamic god as an example, I believe that they would know how to convince me

nope and to go further i think believing in this type of thing is harmful.

Toonstrack posted...

If I tell you I found a seven leafed clover 5 years ago, that statement doesn't mean that if you looked for one now you'd find one, but not being able to produce proof doesn't mean it didn't exist.

As it goes for the argument of evidence, that itself becomes moot when the argument is tantamount to "produce to me physical proof of god" which is also a fallacious ask when you're delving into theory of the universes origin. Its better than simply making a moral appela for God's non existence but... Neptune wasn't discovered because of its affect on earth. Its affect on earth is negligible. It wss actually discovered because of its affect on Uranus.

So, evidence bssixslly didn't exist on earth, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Evidence can exist outside of our purview, outside of our reach, but to definitely claim because we haven't already seen it means god doesn't exist is a fallacy.

And that's why I'm not making the claim that there's no such thing as gods. There may be. There may also be a giant invisible pink elephant stomping around Mars.

However, if someone wants to claim their god is real, they must produce evidence. Without evidence or better yet proof, no one is required to take such a claim seriously. The claim becomes meaningless from a logical standpoint. It does not need to be DISproven because nothing has tried to prove it.

You can believe in a god all you want. I don't plan on trying to dissuade you from that. Something you learned presumably led you to believe this statement, and you hold to your theory. But you should not expect others to follow along with this.

If you'll view my original post in this topic (I'll edit with a # or a link), I believe in beings along the lines of gods. Evidence and accounts have led me to this. But I have seen or heard nothing to point towards such beings as the type of omnipotent or even super powerful beings that the term "god" is typically applied to.

Edit: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80711376/979178230

Toonstrack posted...

The general consensus of practically the entire country of the US was once that slavery was ok. That doesnt mean it was. It very much wasn't.

All this proves is that morality is subjective.

And reminder that those who argued slavery was okay cited God. So there's that.

reincarnator07 posted...

It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but if all you have is your word then most people aren't going to believe you.

Who cares lol? Most people didn't believe Galileo. He was right though.

The origin of the universe and whether a god exists are actually 2 different questions. Obviously if you're arguing that god created everything then that requires a god to exist, but I see no reason that even if there was a god that it had to create the universe.

That is true.

The observation was made on earth, as were the calculations. So actually, yes the evidence for Uranus was on earth.

That's not how that works. The evidence existed in space. We just managed to be able to perceive it from here, and there's plenty we cant perceive from here.

Who here is definitively claiming that god doesn't exist?

Anyone who claims to be an atheist is making the claim god doesn't exist. Its in the definition.

reincarnator07 posted...

The Quran itself has inconsistencies. Google is your friend, but here are some that I like:

2:29: It is He who hath created for you all things that are on Earth; THEN He turned to the Heaven and made them into seven firmaments (Skies). - This states that the Earth was created, then the heavens followed. We know the planets formed after the Sun. This is scientifically inaccurate.

54:1: The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split. - The moon is kinda fucking hueg. If it was split, why did no other culture observe such a phenomenon?

As a general thing, you seem to be more willing to believe in something the more unlikely it is. Don't you think that's pretty illogical?

Were you there to witness the beginning of creation? If not, then you can't say whether something is or isn't correct. It says "skies" - it doesn't specifically the "Sun". Regarding the latter point on the moon, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Toonstrack posted...

No literally quoted the Christian Bible, so yes you did specify.

Because we aren't arguing the merits of Christianity lmao.

Just so we're clear, do you think the morality of a religion is irrelevant to the subject of objective morality being handed down by a creator?

So then, if objective morality doesn't exist then by what authority to we condemn... anyone or any action?

Huh? Why would I need an authority to condemn someone to? If I think something is bad, that's literally my opinion.

SOMEONE does. Anytime there's a clash of wills, agendas or goals in humanity, one is going to win out. Is the one that wins out always right?

I literally don't understand the question you're trying to ask. Some things don't have some great moral question to them. If we both want a donut from the store and I buy the last one, I don't think I'm morally in the right or wrong, it's just buying a donut.

Dalthine posted...

And that's why I'm not making the claim that there's no such thing as gods. There may be. There may also be a giant invisible pink elephant stomping around Mars.

However, if someone wants to claim their god is real, they must produce evidence. Without evidence or better yet proof, no one is required to take such a claim seriously. The claim becomes meaningless from a logical standpoint. It does not need to be DISproven because nothing has tried to prove it.

Plenty in all walks of life and all points of history have given you their reasons for believing in God, or where they've perceived evidence of God's presence in their lives. Some of these are fanciful. Some of these might even be convincing. But they are all subjective. So again, your asking for physical proof of god, a theoretically physical being, a logical explanation for a non logical concept.

It would be like me asking for for logical proof of love existing. You could list to me any examples of expressions of love that you've seen and heard and observed, and I could say "those don't prove love exists, that person had othe reasons for doing what they did". You could tell me "I love someone, I can do this that and that to show you I love them" and I could say "that's just you, doing something Illogical, that doesnt prove love exists".

Do you see the problem?

You can believe in a god all you want. I don't plan on trying to dissuade you from that. Something you learned presumably led you to believe this statement, and you hold to your theory. But you should not expect others to follow along with this.

If you'll view my original post in this topic (I'll edit with a # or a link), I believe in beings along the lines of gods. Evidence and accounts have led me to this. But I have seen or heard nothing to point towards such beings as the type of omnipotent or even super powerful beings that the term "god" is typically applied to.

Edit: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/80711376/979178230

Im not necessarily trying to change anyone's perspective either here. Im speaking on the agreements themselves not being conducive actual arguments for or against gods existence.

reincarnator07 posted...

Just so we're clear, do you think the morality of a religion is irrelevant to the subject of objective morality being handed down by a creator?

Its relevant when judging the morality of that religion, not when considering the existence of the creator. Whether or not you think god is a nice person has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

Huh? Why would I need an authority to condemn someone to? If I think something is bad, that's literally my opinion.

So nothings actually wrong, but you only THINK things are wrong, and someone else who disagrees with you is 100% valid?

I literally don't understand the question you're trying to ask. Some things don't have some great moral question to them. If we both want a donut from the store and I buy the last one, I don't think I'm morally in the right or wrong, it's just buying a donut.

But some things DO. And those things are the important things. And should those important things be subject to the same moral depth as buying a donut?

Toonstrack posted...

Who cares lol? Most people didn't believe Galileo. He was right though.

The massive difference is that Galileo provided evidence for his claims.

That's not how that works. The evidence existed in space. We just managed to be able to perceive it from here, and there's plenty we cant perceive from here.

The evidence was the observation and prediction of the orbit of Uranus as observed from Earth. The planet itself was obviously in space, but the observation was on Earth.

Anyone who claims to be an atheist is making the claim god doesn't exist. Its in the definition.

That's... so incorrect. I would recommend you actually try to understand the fundamental position of Atheism before trying to comment on it.

Oxford: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Merriam-Webster: "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

There is a difference between not believing something and actively disbelieving in something. I have even specified earlier that I don't actively believe there is no god, I merely don't have any faith in any of them. There are some specific descriptions that I actively believe are wrong, but I'm not so arrogant as to think there cannot be any god. For example, I don't believe the god described in the Bible can exist because the descriptions within the bible are inconsistent and many claims of the Bible have been disproved.

Toonstrack posted...

Plenty in all walks of life and all points of history have given you their reasons for believing in God, or where they've perceived evidence of God's presence in their lives. Some of these are fanciful. Some of these might even be convincing. But they are all subjective. So again, your asking for physical proof of god, a theoretically physical being, a logical explanation for a non logical concept.

It would be like me asking for for logical proof of love existing. You could list to me any examples of expressions of love that you've seen and heard and observed, and I could say "those don't prove love exists, that person had othe reasons for doing what they did". You could tell me "I love someone, I can do this that and that to show you I love them" and I could say "that's just you, doing something Illogical, that doesnt prove love exists".

Do you see the problem?

No, I do not. It has in fact been a subject of philosophical debate if love is real or just a product of chemicals to promote societal cooperation and procreation.

I can believe love is real. You can believe a god is real. Proof exists for neither. Evidence leads to theories, and theories are subjective explanations of our best guess at reality. Proof is definitive until disproven.

Uranus was proved by taking photos of it in space. If someone can produce proof those were faked, it could be disproven. But unless such a thing happens, we operate under the assumption that it is reality.

Im not necessarily trying to change anyone's perspective either here. Im speaking on the agreements themselves not being conducive actual arguments for or against gods existence.

This feels like you basically just admitted to being here for no reason but to devil's advocate and stir the pot. Just a theory.

I believe in God (Allah)

I also believe that you can't logically prove God exists. That's why it's called faith

I'm aware my faith is illogical, and I don't care. No one lives out their life 100% logically like a robot. My faith gives me peace and a sense of purpose, and that's good enough for me

reincarnator07 posted...

The massive difference is that Galileo provided evidence for his claims.

The evidence was the observation and prediction of the orbit of Uranus as observed from Earth. The planet itself was obviously in space, but the observation was on Earth.

The evidence wasn't rhe observation tho. The evidence was already there before it was observed. The affect was already existing before we caught wind of it.

That's... so incorrect. I would recommend you actually try to understand the fundamental position of Atheism before trying to comment on it.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God is it not. That means that an atheist doesn't believe that there's a God. What am I missing here lol?

There is a difference between not believing something and actively disbelieving in something. I have even specified earlier that I don't actively believe there is no god, I merely don't have any faith in any of them. There are some specific descriptions that I actively believe are wrong, but I'm not so arrogant as to think there cannot be any god. For example, I don't believe the god described in the Bible can exist because the descriptions within the bible are inconsistent and many claims of the Bible have been disproved.

Sounds like you're closer to an agnostic than an atheist.

Toonstrack posted...

Its relevant when judging the morality of that religion, not when considering the existence of the creator. Whether or not you think god is a nice person has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.

I never said that god being a dick or not has any bearing on whether they exist. Tons of religions have deities that are dicks. However, if a god(s) teach that X is objectively bad and then proceeds to do X, maybe X isn't objectively bad?

So nothings actually wrong, but you only THINK things are wrong, and someone else who disagrees with you is 100% valid?

To who? Do you understand what the subjective part of subjective morality is?

But some things DO. And those things are the important things. And should those important things be subject to the same moral depth as buying a donut?

What. Things. Examples. Please.

Dalthine posted...

No, I do not. It has in fact been a subject of philosophical debate if love is real or just a product of chemicals to promote societal cooperation and procreation.

I can believe love is real. You can believe a god is real. Proof exists for neither. Evidence leads to theories, and theories are subjective explanations of our best guess at reality. Proof is definitive until disproven.

I've seen plenty of proof love is real. You're pigeonholing the concept into something physical, logical, which is a fallacy, because "logic" is also an abstract concept that assumes a correlation/causation system being the sole operating system in the universe. Which kinds clashes with atheist considerations for the origins of life.

Uranus was proved by taking photos of it in space. If someone can produce proof those were faked, it could be disproven. But unless such a thing happens, we operate under the assumption that it is reality.

You place much authority on physicality of proof and subservience to this abstract force of logic. Its a preference but when you reach the core of it, that "assumption" of correctness or accuracy of the evidence based on this logic, is not all that different from faith.

This feels like you basically just admitted to being here for no reason but to devil's advocate and stir the pot. Just a theory.

Theres no devils nor angels here. This is a topic on gamefaqs, not a court of law, not a philosophers counsel. Im here for discussion.

reincarnator07 posted...

I never said that god being a dick or not has any bearing on whether they exist. Tons of religions have deities that are dicks. However, if a god(s) teach that X is objectively bad and then proceeds to do X, maybe X isn't objectively bad?

Thats an entirely different conversation than the one this thread is based around. I would suggest reading the topic title again.

To who? Do you understand what the subjective part of subjective morality is?

Okay then. So then, if no morality actually exists in an objective state, than is right or wrong a real concept or just as fictional as you believe God to be?

What. Things. Examples. Please.

Do you really need this explained to you? What things could be more important to society than whether or not you buy a donut? You cannot think of anything?