Let's have a respectful debate/discussion about whether "God" (or "a higher power" or whatever you want to call it) exists.
What do you guys think?
Please let's keep this discussion respectful--but debate and critical thinking are encouraged! Don't expect to not have your beliefs questioned, but I ask that all posters please avoid personal attacks.
Can you prove that God exists?
No?
The burden of proof is on you.
He doesn't exist until you can prove that he exists.
Checkmate.
/thread
>>29579051
>Can you prove that God exists?
What is "God", really? I mean, what are we talking about when we discuss the matter?
Semantics is clearly a vital part of this discussion.
>The burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. I didn't make a claim, so I don't have any burden of proof. Also, no burden of proof is required to take an agnostic position.
>He doesn't exist until you can prove that he exists.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
GOD IS DEAD
and who cares?
>>29579103
I believe in God. I refuse to believe that after we die we just become nothing for all of eternity. That thought genuinely scares the crap out of me. There is no way of ever knowing for sure, but the thought of going to an awesome paradise of happiness after I die sounds pretty good to me.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Nigger there's like four other threads about this you can post in. Check the fucking catalog before you post.
Can we at least all agree that if a God exists, it's nowhere near humanoid?
>>29579470
>rationalwiki
yeah ok god delusion your favorite book? fucking normies
>>29579454
So if I understand correctly, you believe in God because the thought is comforting to you--not because of evidence. Is that a fair summation?
I think the universe has a creator, but an imperfect one. One that doesn't necessarily know everything that's going to happen in its own creation, and where unexpected problems occur. Sort of like a programmer making a virtual simulator, it's not like the programmer knows everything that will happen and some things are faulty.
So the idea of an all-knowing, perfect God is a faulty one in my opinion, but the general concept of a creator, especially an imperfect one, is very valid.
>>29578966
If there was no God, what would be the point of anything? That we all just appeared out of no where for no reason? That is the same thing the anti-Gods say to discredit religious people. I believe there is a plan bigger than anyone of us, and we all play a part. We were all designed and have purpose, and someone or something had to start it.
>>29579470
>RaSHILLnal wiki
Can anybody actually be retarded enough to cite rational wiki anywhere inironically?
You did this ironically, yes?
>>29579517
This conception of God seems to avoid disproof via the problem of evil.
If the God is not all-knowing or all-powerful, then the problem of evil isn't a problem for his existence.
>>29578966
Everyone who decides to post in this thread could instead real ancient dialectics on the subject, learn, and not endure the poorly interpreted regurgitations which are constantly reposted.
>>29579502
Its not like any claim regarding the afterlife has any evidence.
>>29579051
>le burden of proof
How about the bible anon, an extremely detailed historic account, we know more about Jesus then we do Alexander the Great.
>muh proof
How about faith, demanding proof is an insult to faith.
>>29579557
shut the fuck up you goddamn bumbling idiot
>>29579672
No need for the insults. OP asked what I thought about God and I responded. If you do happen to have some evidence of the afterlife, or lack thereof, I'd more than love to see it.
>>29578966
Fuck it, I'll bite.
Alright, so Postmodernism showed us that there is no one truth, but all is subjective even what we consider truth. To an extent, we can't even be sure of whats outside of the mind, but we think we understand due to measures and comparison. (Postmodernism hallmark was a damn near nihilistic belief, Metamodernism and others would later define structures on top of this subjectivity, understanding that these are consensus based. but still inherently created).
The normal thing to do is agree with others around you (see social pressure) and conform to the norm. When everyone else is a christfag, you'll probably think like a christfag. Same for fedoralords.
The question isn't if god exists, or something outside our perception exists, with all simply being a construct we can call the universe unreal and be done with it. But simple nihilism leaves us useless and without affect. So instead we believe in our given constructs.
Yours just doesn't float in the sky. One mans God is not another, even though they serve the same higher purpose: to make sense of this goddamn real hellhole.
I believe in rationality and science, I'm a STEM dick through and through. And even though God doesn't objectively exist, he is real.
Why? Literally because I make him.
Does anyone else think that people who believe in a deity just want to feel there is a purpose for them being here? Not that there's anything wrong with that.
People want to believe they have a purpose, so they can feel they have some guidance.
He probably does exist but not in the christian context, it's probably just some mass of intelligence that doesn't give a single fuck about us.
>>29580044
>he is real
Only in the sense that, as you sort of implied, "real" is ill-posed.
As another variation on this interpretation, though, the important thing is that people like teleology. Most people aren't into avant garde fiction like Foucault's Pendulum, which could be summarized as, "Some people find a document fragment that's either the Knights Templar's plan for world domination, or someone's grocery list. They run with the first interpretation, but it's actually the second." People just don't like that kind of storytelling for some reason, nor do they like structuring their lives around stories like, "I was born, and some stuff happened, and I happened into some jobs, and none of it really went anywhere."
God is just a name for a teleological theory of the universe itself. The trick is, that also has other names like "spiritualism" and "science." Atheists fill the teleology-shaped holes in their hearts with science (or "scientism," or anyway, reckless empiricism), while most scientists are also religious. Outright rejection of teleology, a sort of avant garde approach to life itself, is considerably rare, and I doubt most people with that outlook would be comfortable calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or really taking anything relating to gods seriously enough to name it.
>>29580044
Fuck off and immediately kill yourself, you spastic mutt.
>>29580402
So the ultimate mindset would be the ability to switch between mental frameworks and believe in them sincerely.
So chaos magic?
