The debate "Debating about God's existence is pointless. You can not prove or disprove it." was started by
April 27, 2016, 10:49 am.
37 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 17 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
QueenQuirks posted 12 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Arnonsha posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 11 arguments, RANDOMEDIA posted 2 arguments, dalton7532 posted 3 arguments, adi15 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
QueenQuirks, natemaster200, Razor, Nemiroff, Eilon, kaitchunn, tr, PoetPrincess85, ReadyToBegin, ototoxic, RyanWakefield, Sumerian, joy25joy, truce_jttm, codyray16, SwaggerPoptart and 21 visitors agree.
Arnonsha, RedFox, RANDOMEDIA, dalton7532, historybuff, adi15, SueAnnMohr and 10 visitors disagree.
Take the story metaphorically though. You can see why it is the start of Judaism, as well as, how it can support science. Science knows there were people before that but, it can't disprove that's the begging of Judaism.
I agree with everything you said except for Adam and eve being the start of Judaism.
God did not reveal any of the laws or knowledge of Judaism until Abraham, the first jew, and well after the events of the garden of eden.
Abraham was after the events of babylon, after the flood of Noah. that was when Judaism started in the Bible.
The bible is metaphorical. Adam and Eve is the start of Judaism not man kind. The great flood isn't the whole world, just a section of the land. Westerners tend to be literal people, when the eastern people are metaphorical. Religion stems for the East not the west in all major religions.
that is a logical fallacy. you cannot imagine how things could exist without a creator so you assume there must be one despite there being no evidence of such a creator. the existence of things that developed naturally is not evidence of a creator.
It's pretty simple. everything in the world is exist because of a cause. even this Mobile phone exist because there are some companies that work in building it. so, the existence of God can be simply proven through the existence of human, animal, and plants which were created perfectly.
your answer to laws of biology is that God waved his hand and made incest ok. that isn't an argument. unless God changed the DNA if every child born this simply doesn't make any sense.
-If you take Adam and Eve in biblical context, you have to take that God allowed incest in order for the world to be populated. After there was enough people, God punished incest, and that was not until after the flood. It says that in the Bible. You cannot nitpick what you want and ignore everything else. Therefore, your point is invalid.
-I was asking you a valid question. I wanted your input on it. Is that bad?
I have read the Bible. I went to Sunday school every week as a child.
inbreeding is inbreeding. if you have a child with a relative you have a limited gene pool. that will never change. if there were only 2 progenitors our Gene pool would have been tiny and the grandchildren and great grand children would have all died.
there has never been a global flood. sediment records are very clear about that. the human race has never been suddenly wiped out like that either. if they had I would just go back to the inbreeding argument since everyone on that boat was from one family.
and you think that different cultures having similar myths makes it more like to be true? that doesn't make sense.
the dates of the old testament are off by at least 1000 years. they talk about camels in the old testament. camels weren't domesticated until about 900 BC. not 2000 BC, as events in the old testament are described. if there were domesticated camels, it has to be after 900 BC.
-Here we go again. Did you actually read the Bible, or did you obtain your information elsewhere on the subject of the Bible?
-If we take Adam and Eve from the Bible, we have too take otherthings that the bible says too. One of the things is hundreds of years after the creation of Adam and Eve, God made it harmful for incest. Incest was possible by God for the only purpose to populate the Earth.
- What evidence do you propose that disproves Noah's Ark? I am curious to see that evidence.
-I read in biology class that there was similar stories of the Bible's way of creation in areas before the Bible was even brought to that continent along time ago. How do you propose this is possible?
Noah's flood has been disproven. there has never been a global flood. that has been definitively proven.
Adam and Eve cannot have existed. all of the human race cannot have come from a closed gene pool of 2 people. the human race would have all died of inbreeding.
parts of the Bible are forgeries. written much later than the author claims so as to lend legitimacy to what they say. so the author of the work and therefore any reason to believe them is a lie.
many stories in the Bible are just copies of earlier Mesopotamian ones. there is also evidence there was no Exodus of Israelites out of Egypt.
-I cannot recall any event in the Bible being disproven. I only recall some being proven.
-Noah's Flood was due to the corruption and evil on the Earth. He cleansed the world. If you are discussing this, you have to tell it correctly.
-There is a differnce between religion and following God and the Bible. Religion is like Catholics who add new laws and beliefs interperted from the Bible.
-I am curious what parts of the Bible have been disproven. I would like to know what I "skip over and ignore"
my issue is you can't classify them all the same. Accept the person as they are. Things do and will change. I have a bigger distaste for Christians then muslims, but I accept both for their beliefs. I can't/won't change it. Arguing it nonsense regardless if you had all the facts in the world. It just pisses off people and created tensions.
I'm not saying all religions are evil. but they do all resist change. small sects of them might not, but an exception does not change the rule. and I did answer your question.
If you come off wrong compared to what you are trying to say it's understandable, it happens to us all. Generalizing all religions into one mass group is wrong though. It's very stereotypical, It's like all black people steal, all Asians are good at math, or all white people are child predators. Which makes a line between debating and denouncing/slandering.
"and parts of the Bible have been disproven, but that never seems to matter. people just ignore that parts of the Bible are obvious lies." -HistoryBuff.
If it doesn't matter it doesn't change right? Don't make some excuse that it's read into too much. So answer my question like I said. Or are you dumbfounded on it?
does anyone on here actually read the things I write? i didn't say religion never changes. I said they change much slower. they resist change until it can't be avoided. I don't know much about your branch of Judaism but I very much doubt all Jews believe in evolution.
So if religion never changes why did the Rabbi's say evolution is how G-d created the world? Since you know so much about it not changing tell me why they made that change. There are holes in religion, and I'm my religion that they conform to the changes that's been displayed them. So go ahead and answer my question.
no one here is saying that God can be disproven. religion is set up specifically so that it can't be disproven. it is just highly unlikely to be true. and parts of the Bible have been disproven, but that never seems to matter. people just ignore that parts of the Bible are obvious lies.
Obviously in your opinion its obviously can not be true. You both are just biased. Even scientist who have way experience studying the bible, studying science have said you can not disprove God. but personally they don't believe in him.
hmm, a spanking compared to flooding the entire world or burning people for all eternity. no that's not really a good comparison. if you meant that God acts like child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way then you might have a point.
you can disprove it, and it has been but religious people choose to ignore it
are they bad parents
If a your parens punishes you or spanks after you die something they told you not to
just because God isn't constantly petty and vain does not change the fact that he frequently is. if your partner beats you 20% of the time and is nice the rest of the time, are they a good partner?
Look at the ones that aren't though.
me? I'm not insulting, I am criticizing it.
listen the language of some of the prayers in any religion, in any testament. How insecure and vain must you be to require such praise from your followers on a daily basis?
is he wrong? god demands constant love and attention. if you refuse he destroys your cities or floods the world and sends you to burn for eternity. he is jealous, moody and vengeful. doesn't sound like a god to me. sounds like a 6 year old having a tantrum.
Why are you trying to be clever and insulting a religion?
the new testament God is still vain and insecure. the old testament God was those and also spiteful and vengeful.
There is this thing called the New Testament, dude.
You say that it is impossible to prove that God exists, but in the Bible it specifically says that nothing is impossible...
I don't know if it also says that in the Quran or the Tora, so don't get mad at me with comments about it.
the invisible man with supposed perfection except for his unexplained obsession with his own vanity and a compelling need to be constantly praised and worshipped by inferior beings?
if a perfect being did exist he would not have human flaws like the monstrous vanity and insecurity of the biblical God. All religions at best are a bunch of imperfect beings totally missing the point of his gift and teachings
but I do agree that debating his existence is rather pointless.
We are arguing about the existence of the biblical God Jehovah.
we cannot argue anything unless we agree on the basic details of what we are arguing about.
Coming away with more questions Is good. look at science, for every question answered we get more and more mysteries to wonder about and unlock.
Well I'm Jewish nemiroff, one thing I learned as a kid is never ask your rabbi for answers, you only leave with more questions.
what exactly is god?
is he the personal and all perfect non physical deity?
is he anything that could have kick started life on this planet even if it was an imperfect just more advanced being or civilization?
is it an unconcious force of creation with no will?
are we even in agreement about what we are arguing here?
I get what your saying TWZ. maybe I should gamble with God. sometimes I wonder of his existence and if he is real its more worth it to believe in him. but who knows.
TWZ. That was the smartest thing you said so far.
Sometimes it's better to be a gambling man. Nothing ventured nothing gained. You can't answer anything 100%. Nothing is life is truly known. For all we know we are just characters in the largest Sim game.
I can't prove they are wrong. the odds of them being right are pretty damn low, but I can't completely prove them wrong. especially since every other religion has the same very low odds.
The issue with today is that we as westerners are very literal people, while the majority of the common religions today come from a metaphorical ideology.
To piggy back on unicorns many animals thought to be myths have been found, such as the panda and gorilla. So who is to say anyone who believes in a divine being is wrong?
There's actually plenty of good reasons to his existence. plenty of weird things, coincidences and history, even facts. I'm not saying he does but just be open minded.
That's completely different lol. Unicorns and all that stuff are completley different from God and religion. It would be like 1000 times harder for anybody to argue for unicorns than God. At least be open minded. I don't know how you think that comparison is the same.
I can't disprove unicorns or dragons either, that doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe in them. proving a negative that was designed to be unprovable is impossible. the fact that it can't be disproven does not offer any evidence for God's existence.
But sure. If someone wants to debate about that's fine. I just feel like it will go no where. Change nobody. Definitely not there opinion. Even scientist who has been studying this for years say You simply don't have enough solid evidence and from what I researched when I was an athiest truthfully there's no actual solid evidence. Especially for Christians. I'm agnostic.
You don't believe there's no solid evidence but scientifically speaking yes there's no actual solid evidence to disprove God.
There's no solid evidence on both sides. Plenty of athiest and scientist have said it as well. Sure your side may be convincing but thats it. It may have a different puzzle to how you think but that's it.
What hard evidence? Unreliable evidence actually? Its not actual solid evidence. In fact some of it is just theory's. Convincing theory's sure but that's it.
I do not disagree with any data. I disagree with the explanations formed out of them, or mqybe sometimes I do not. I continue to say all the data can support or be explained by creation. That is not twisting anything. You have a claims and you try to support it with data. There is nothing wrong with that. I am always open to learning new things. I really enjoyed making phylogenic trees for biology and enjoyed learning about the Big Bang when I had the time. Just because I believe in creationist does not mean I deny any data or refuse to learn about some scientific theories. Whenever I get into these debates, I try to do.my best explaining and supporting my arguments in the most logical way possible. I do not really want to get into another really pointless argument about this as of now. I just wanted to state that above. Thank you.
Not being provable is not a valid argument for not debating something. Most things that are worth arguing are not provable. Most, if not all, philosophical theories are not provable by definition and are debated and valuably so.
except religious people always fall back on flawed reasoning or denial when confronted with hard evidence.
I do not agree about God having no proof, but debating God's existence can also give people different outlooks on certain subjecs. It can also maybe convince somebody who does not agree with you that there is by using logical reasoning. It is good to debate it makes you feel stronger to your views or makes you have a different outlook on some things.