The debate "Is God real or fake and why" was started by
January 8, 2018, 3:52 am.
69 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 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.
dbrock posted 1 argument, Marcon posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, tylathecat posted 1 argument, Gorgon posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
dbrock, Ashes, nivasprashanth, Keto, Marcon, chickboy1776, greencat, Andrewchaney69420 and 61 visitors agree.
tylathecat, Ananya, Gorgon, Audrey, DeRosaDirt and 26 visitors disagree.
Notanidiot's name is inaccurate, no one is two words.
God is real, read the Bible, it is the first recording of the Earth being spherical (Isa 40:22). If the Bible was correct about that, then it must be correct about God's existence. It also has genetic tracings that lead to the first man, Adam, and his wife Eve. If someone can trace your genes back to the first link, then you have been traced back to Adam, and eventually God. Then will you believe? This family line spans almost 4,000 years, to the New Testament. After that, you just have 2018 years to trace back to this line. Abraham begot all of the human race, the Bible is correct. The Earth is round. When will the athiests learn.
Najam, stay on topic. You've already made five billion goldang threads on the police. If anyone here wants to debate it, you'll find them there. You're not going to spark discussion that wouldn't otherwise happen here, you'll only be annoying everyone.
To ask a question such as this is impossible to answer. Noone exactly knows. Noone has exact proof as to God not existing. We merely try to put 2 and 2 together. It's not fact that he exists and it's not fact that he doesn't. Anyone tells you any different they're wrong.
The false gods are anyone who says they can shoot you with a gun, and you can't shoot back because some other human on the planet told them it's okay to only shoot those who can't shoot back.
It's all false gods and cowards claiming that those are the laws on Earth.
Hmm.... Well, if time is anyways changing speed, getting faster and faster, there really isn't a default, just relative differences in tempo. As for the issue of gravity, I suppose that'd depend.... hadn't ever occurred to me. If the important thing is proximity of mass, then a dense universe would be slow, but if its net gravitational pull, then it would not.
I would think if you're correct, then, since gravity is balanced out around the center of most masses, time would move faster in the center of any planet and star and *maybe* black holes, as well as at gravitational centers of orbits. So there are definitely implications for either.
On alternative ideas, I've heard of the one you mentioned, and I'm open to it. I more consider that with at least some minimum of possibilities that the universe is eternal or whatever infrastructure it might exist within is eternal, and that some have possible mechanisms we've demonstrated, we don't have need for hypotheses that are unparsimonious and unfalsifiable. It's a wild goose chase, with perfectly tame geese standing right there next to us.
I do have an alternative theory, are you familiar with quantum fluctuations?
pretty much, a vacuum appears to be an unstable state and on a quantum level particles are constantly popping in and out of existence. with dark energy accelerating the expansion constantly it is believed that at one point it could end up affecting the subatomic particles well before the black holes evaporate.
that sounds like it will create conditions far more extreme then the vacuums seen in the current universe, and may create big, more stable, and more energetic particles, some of which may become expanding universes. every time dark energy rips a universe apart, a new one takes its place out of the nothingness.
rather than time slowing in the past, wouldn't it be more proper to say time is speeding up now as the past was the actual default rate? the original event did happen, can you really postpone an origin event and pretend that something that already happened never actually will? the cause remains an open question.
in addition, what effect would gravity even have in a homogeneous soup with no center? wouldn't it be like air pressure, pushing down on us with the same force that it pushes out in all directions, effectively making it nonexistent?
Alright, I think I can do this and work at the same time.
Don't tell my manager.
So the idea isn't that you're assuming, it's that you're wagering. Just like in statistics.
If you want to be more technically accurate, it's better to say we have infinite null hypotheses, one for each unfalsifiable possibility, and when falsifiability becomes possible, you can test the idea against the null hypothesis, and you get the picture.
I'm not talking about storing the sum total of human knowledge, but about what it'd take to store the data required to understand the universe in its totality. To know a system in totality, you must have another system equal to or larger than it, right? You can only have a system with a subsystem equal to it within it if that system has infinite resolution.
Which, for reasons I expounded upon and you have further expounded upon, is impossible.
On time, the concept is not just that there's no time before space time, but that space time stretches infinitely back, so that there's no beginning, just infinite regression. If you look at time dilation, it makes more sense. Time within a volume moves more slowly the more mass is crammed in that space. This was one of the foundational principles of special relativity, and you can prove it with two of the right kinds of clock, (one as a, control,) and a high altitude plane flight.
So if the universe is expanding, it is easy to intuit that it's becoming less dense. Thus, space is, on average, moving faster.
If you had an infinitely dense singularity, time would be completely still.
So the closer you get to such a singularity, the slower time will move --- you can't possibly reach that state!
Now imagine you're tracking time backwards, everything is getting more dense, time is moving more slowly. Will you ever reach a beginning? The closer you get to a singular point of space composing the universe, the more time you need to take to observe space time shrink by the same amount. You'll never reach that singularity.
So the idea that time doesn't exist before the singularity is just one way of phrasing things --- another way is that the universe has always been getting bigger and faster, and its never been another way.
Its a very parsimonious idea with lots of evidence, but I wouldn't say it's demonstrated beyond a doubt.
Brb, got to work and stuff. Will address the rest later.
I think you are under the impression that assuming lack of existence is any less an assumption than assuming existence. assuming atoms, cells, and air didn't exist didn't progress science, neither did it keep people from rejecting these things at first when proof was given. the problem is not in the hypothesis, whatever form it takes, but the assumption, positive or negative.
also a null hypothesis as used here (which isnt the official use which has something to do with error margins in results) is an oxymoron. a hypothesis by definition is something that seeks to be proven. a null hypothesis seeks to prove a negative. a negative cannot be proven. thus a null hypothesis is not a hypothesis.
knowledge is not infinite either. books and especially servers have proven to be more than capable of storing all of our knowledge. especially considering we were talking about our current knowledge. I'm not sure where infinities came into this.
the infinite answer is never satisfying to me. once you think about it, it becomes nonsense. infinite space would require infinite energy and matter. that would negate the law of conservation as you would be able destroy half the energy in the universe, or even double it, without ever changing the actual amount. thus making the law of conservation meaningless. infinities in time also become nonsensical imo, althought it's harder to describe.
personally I find ALL the natural explanations as unsatisfying as the supernatural explanation. it always comes down to either creation ex nhilo or some form of infinity. the current explanation of "there was no time before the big bang so the question of before is senseless" is senseless itself because events happen in time and without some form of hyperspace-time, it would never have set it motion. and if there is a hyperspace-time, we just moved the goal posts and are stuck with the same question.
I'm mostly not arguing for or against a, position, so much as describing one.
Booked and servers still don't provide infinite storage. Storage might be infinite for all intents and purposes at this moment, but you could never possibly store the data describing every specific quantum state of the universe throughout all time without an even larger universe to use as storage.
A loophole would be infinitely resolute space, like what you could use to describe a fractal in totality, but distance becomes meaningless at the Plank width, and full of quantum fluctuations that will introduce noise to your server over time and degrade it.
We can and do use data compression of all kinds, but some minimum of detail is always lost when doing so.
As for god existing or not, I'm not believing such a thing doesn't exist, so much as wagering. Non existence of a thing is always more likely, in absence of evidence, than existence. The wager could be wrong, but it rarely is, and thus, it's the best we have.
And besides, null hypotheses remove a
lot of confirmation bias from the system. Speeds scientific industry up. Lots of true hypotheses were rejected evem after proven because of prior assumptions first formulated and believed when unfalsifiable.
the brain doesn't need infinite storage. we have books, and now servers for that.
I'm not sure what fears your talking about. I'm not talking about a specific religion with arbitrary mythology, I'm talking about the idea of a God, one that need not even ever spoken to us. seeing as both sides have unfalsifiable ideas, why would you say that "we must wager that no deity exists"?
I never said we should have an answer. I'm not sure what your arguing against. I'm just wondering how, in the absence of an ultimate answer, you can do confidently claim no diety can possibly exist?
As for knowing any first event, or even if there was a first event instead of an infinite chains, or a loop of causality, we simply don't. If we can't know something, we don't. No need to pretend we have answers. Indeed, the thought we must know everything, or can know, is simply a cognitive bias. Blame the brain for not having infinite storage space, I guess.
If they are unfalsifiable, we have no such necessity.
After all, any hypotheses not falsifiable is up against infinite contradictory hypotheses. You can't be a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer if you're really a brain outside a vast hooked up to a computer, or if you're a computer simulation, or if you're pure spirit, dreaming of the world.... we can suppose infinite unfalsifiable possibilities, each with infinite others contradicting them, and infinite others complimenting them, or building upon them, as well. Any situation you can name, I can posit an additional, somehow undetected banana peel lies in wait.
Infinite of these feature negative consequences for any action we could take. The chance that next step you take as you walk summoning a demon is the same as that chance not taking that step out of fear of summoning a demon.
Will there ever be a point in wasting previous brain time on infintesimal, unfalsifiable fears?
and what if you must choose between 2 unfalsifiable claims?
unless you know a falsifiable answer to how reality came to be. even assuming no multiverse, we know most of how the universe came to be, how things played out as the event unfolded, but we have no idea what triggered it to begin with.
I guess I should say that I consider the word false to be best defined as many logicians and scientists do: as unsound, neither tautological nor in evidence, arbitrary to what we can plan our actions about, etc..
I don't mean to say must so much as should. Its a moral imperative that we maintain congruence and parsimony of belief and evidence,
After all, if we accept a claim that is neither parsimonious nor falsifiable, then what if that possibility becomes falsifiable, and then is unsound? This has occurred many times throughout human history, such as the fall of Geocentrism or Creationism, and we're still suffering the consequences. And not just ideological conflict is possible. Imagine if rockets were invented prior to geocentrism, and a mission was launched into space on its assumptions?
And we see tragedy occur on account of religious assumptions all the time, from deaths on account of faith healers to death by hands of psychic surgeons. We waste a great deal of money, time, and worst of all, human life, on these technically logical but unsound concepts.
"With current evidence and the most advanced scientific criteria, we must wager that no deities exist."
I dont think that any such necessities exists. literal religious belief is certainly misguided, but the idea of a creator is not without logical merit, especially with our current most advanced scientific evidence and criteria.
The parsimonious explanation for your belief in god is not that you know him to exist, but a complex psychological phenomenon that is often called "Illusion of External Agency." This explanation also has more predictive power. For example, Christian Theism predicted god can inform you of things you didn't now. IoEA predicts that no Christian will demonstrate their percieved communications of their deity providing them with novel information, and I have never observed otherwise.
Furthermore, atheism is a wager based on Ockham's Razor and falsifiability. This means it's as tenable a position as, say, the position that acupuncture is a theatrical placebo. Its not really a position so much as it is a prediction. With current evidence and the most advanced scientific criteria, we must wager that no deities exist. We are still free to test contradictory hypotheses, and if we find that one negates this null hypothesis,so we change our position. It really is that simple.
Sabertooth, did you seriously appeal to formal debate rules when someone called you out for trying to obfuscate your position on the debate topic? You're obviously taking the position in this debate that you actually believe, so using what you said elsewhere to extrapolate exactly that is perfectly permissible.
I spoke to a Muslim about this the other day and she could not give me hard evidence that there is in fact a god. I asked her to show me some and she said it is in the Qur'an... I do not mean to be offensive but if that is the case I could believe that Narnia exists and Aslan is god. She responded by saying "well how about science books how can you prove that oxygen is in the air although can't smell, hear or see it. i responded with "yes but currently: oxygen death toll = 0, Religion death toll = countless". Therefore even if there was a god or not, and I'm assuming not, is He truly worth all the lives He is costing?
"certainly one can find irrefutable proof of god in one's heart"
..No you can't. "Proof" means evidence. How can you have "evidence" that you can't share with others? Evidence is something that can be apparent to all. Not just one person. Or are you saying the way Christians live there lives, no longer disbelieving in the One True God, should be evidence to the whole world He is real? If the narrative of the Bible is logical, how can other narratives also be logical? Only the Bible tells us the Gospel. That God loves us and made it possible for us to have a personal relationship with Him. That all our sins can be washed away and we can live life forgiven. No other religion or creed offers this narrative which so logically solves the human problem of life.
certainly one can find irrefutable proof of god in one's heart, however I'm sure you've noticed the difficulty of communicating this evidence to those who haven't already found it themselves. there is no physical evidence pointing decisively at god. at best you have a logical narrative that is very possible, but so are other options.
It is good you know facts exist regardless if we have discovered them yet. No one can disprove the God of the Bible's existence and therefore atheism is an unobtainable position. Many atheists don't realize that. But you are wrong to say you can't know if God exists. He does. I know Him. A belief is not a guess. A belief has no evidence readily available. A belief can be factual. And all things factual are true. And my belief in the One True God is true :) as it is for every human who comes to know the Truth
of course, facts exist or do not independent of our ability to prove them. that is why we discover facts instead of invent them. however, just because some beliefs are facts doesn't mean all are. in fact most aren't.
from your perspective, belief in Jesus is fact but belief in Vishnu is false. both are beliefs that shape many lives.
Also, a belief that I am going to be successful may shape my life, but my belief that red heads love cake may be pretty irrelevant and I'm unlikely to base my life around it. beliefs come in all shapes, sizes, and validities.
either way. the question of god is unprovable in either direction. It's a matter of faith.
That's not true neighbor, all people are unGodly until they surrender their hearts to God. And some of these people do this by getting on both their knees and praying :)
"..beliefs can be something you base your life around."
Beliefs ARE something you base your life around, neighbor. You're right to say beliefs are not supported by evidence. But a belief can be factual, even without evidence. Would you like to know how? :)
ungodly people hate getting on both knees to pray
forgive me for my non omniscience. I do not pretend to know everything, but you seem to think you do.
yes, beliefs can be something you base your life around. that doesn't make it fact. one can believe they are destined to be successful and base their life around it. that doesn't mean they will, although that is a good start. It's just a really really big important guess.
"It is my understanding that god is.."
Here we go again. "It is my understanding" - when you write that, you are saying this is my personal take on the matter, but not the truth of the matter. Either you know about God or you don't. The God of the Bible, the One True God, doesn't demand worship. He deserves it.
?? did you read what you wrote? How can God making His presence known to you, make others believe in God? Explain that please. Thank you.
A belief is not a guess. A belief defines your life. If you're not sure about your beliefs then you can't say you have any. A belief is not a guess.
I agree with your statement except for the requirement to be worshipped. It is my understanding that god is supposed to not have human flaws like vanity.
if God does demand that inferior beings kneel before him, he is much more like us, imperfect at least morally.
Say you were a God, and you require your subjects to worship you and have faith in you. Would you make your presence known to them? No. Because then everyone would believe in you and follow you, making it pointless for them to have faith in you.
any answer that starts with "my belief is" is self proclaiming itself to not being a definitive answer but a "best guess".
in the presence of an unanswerable question, are we not allowed to use the tools at our disposal to form a logical conclusion? Or must we resign ourselves to ignorance and never bother trying? if that is your belief then we must all be agnostic.
Yes, "in the other thread." But that statement of mine wasn't directed to you. It was my argument for the topic of that thread. But I'm finding that you are in several threads. However, in this thread, based on what's available here - what I've expressed to you personally, you wouldn't know I'm a Christian. Just like a professional debate you use that information provided in that debate. Since you were in that other thread, that's how you know I'm a Christian. I just wasn't expecting you to use it as an "offense" towards me, since we barely know each other and just met. But you are right, yes I am a Christian. Could you please answer my question to you. How can you have a definite answer to a question (Is God real?) which you claim is un-answerable. Please validate your claim, thank you.
in the other thread you stated:
"I am a Christian. Islam is a false religion. We can't ban it."
if your a Christian, you must believe in god.
* [continued] >>definite
Your statement implies that I believe in God. However, I haven't mentioned my beliefs in this debate thread. You could only know that from reading that about me in a different article. You still haven't validated your claim that you can have a >>definite
much the same way you came to your determination.... then again you most likely just went along with whatever determination you happened to be born into.
"Impossible to determine, but my belief..."
..sir. If you can't "determine" it, how can you have a personal "determination" about it?
You are fake. You and all people who pretend that nobody dies. The people who stopped Chicago Homicide from being updated are fake. False god police are fakes who think that only they and rich people deserve to live on the Earth before dying and going to hell themselves.
impossible to determine, but my belief is that he doesnt. it's just so much more logical that the original existence would be simple matter and not some perfect consciousness.