Is the Existence of God really worth debating?

[outhouse]

Don't feed the troll.

LOL your quick on your feet

frubals for you

 

[zemelo.franky]

LOL your quick on your feet

frubals for you

Frube me up good, baby.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of course Atheism is a faith. It is the completely faith-based conclusion that god does not or can not exist.

Exactly how is lack of belief in the supernatural "faith"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A God that cannot be substantiated by science, even in principle, by definition does not exist.

Have I missed something?

Do you truly believe that everthing that exists can be substantiated by science? So, for example, did nothing exist before 1 Planck time?

You're obviously smart and just waiting for someone to catch your interest, so... what is that you want to talk about? I'm incredibly interested in hearing it.

Pay attention. To assert:

"A God that cannot be substantiated by science, even in principle, by definition does not exist."​

suggests the claim:

Everything that exists can be, at least in principle, substantiated by science.​

So, what of the period before 1 Planck time. Did it exist? What about it can be, at least in principle, substantiated by science? And then, of course, there's Gödel.

PolyHedral over-reaches. You accomplish considerably less.

 

[Sunstone]

I might agree with the notion that the existence of god was not worth debating if all that was really being debated was the existence of god. But many times, the existence of god seems to be asserted as part of an agenda that ultimate includes social and political issues. When god is used as a hammer to pound away at, say, stem cell research, it's time to debate the existence of god.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course Atheism is a faith. It is the completely faith-based conclusion that god does not or can not exist.

Yet, you're definition of "atheism" commits the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, does it not? And, if so, why would you want to do that?

 

[methylatedghosts]

To the original question: Is the existence of God really worth debating?

Yes. The one who wins this argument, the one who is right, is the one who gets to hold the moral, political and social high grounds. That kind of power would be extremely valuable to a lot of people, and many are afraid of losing that power.

 

[Otherright]

A God that cannot be substantiated by science, even in principle, by definition does not exist. (Proof is the realm of mathematics.)

But most people don't say that God can't be substantiated by science, because they make claims about the real world. They say, "God healed this!" and "God stopped that!" Those claims can be tested by science, despite claims to the contrary. However, when they are tested, the tests come back negative.

That's the thing about belief, it doesn't require proof.

 

[Otherright]

To the original question: Is the existence of God really worth debating?

Yes. The one who wins this argument, the one who is right, is the one who gets to hold the moral, political and social high grounds. That kind of power would be extremely valuable to a lot of people, and many are afraid of losing that power.

That is irrevocably correct.

 

[Otherright]

Yet, you're definition of "atheism" commits the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, does it not? And, if so, why would you want to do that?

I think he assumes atheism sides with science, and science requires at least a measure of faith.

 

[methylatedghosts]

That is irrevocably correct.

At least, that perception is there. I'm not sure if it matches reality though - I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens when someone turns out to be in the right.

 

[Otherright]

At least, that perception is there. I'm not sure if it matches reality though - I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens when someone turns out to be in the right.

Look at history, that statement precisely matches reality.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Look at history, that statement precisely matches reality.

Naw, I mean, when someone turns out to actually be right. Not just pretend

 

[zemelo.franky]

Yet, you're definition of "atheism" commits the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, does it not? And, if so, why would you want to do that?

Okay, let's just settle it this way. I will pose that none of you can propose one legitimate shred of evidence for Atheism that I can not defunct. Not one.

I'm all ears.

(Funny how it seems to be assumed I'm religious, which I'm not.)

 

[methylatedghosts]

Okay, let's just settle it this way. I will pose that none of you can propose one legitimate shred of evidence for Atheism that I can not defunct. Not one.

I'm all ears.

(Funny how it seems to be assumed I'm religious, which I'm not.)

That depends on what you take atheism to mean.

Lack of belief in God - "There is no evidence to show God exists"
Belief that God does not exist - "God doesn't exist"

Evidence for the second would be difficult to come up with.
Evidence for the first is simply all the evidence that says "This doesn't prove anything"

Or not?

 

[Sunstone]

Okay, let's just settle it this way. I will pose that none of you can propose one legitimate shred of evidence for Atheism that I can not defunct. Not one.

I'm all ears.

(Funny how it seems to be assumed I'm religious, which I'm not.)

Your proposal is a subtle variation on a straw man fallacy. I'm not buying into your fantasy that all atheists assert there is well grounded evidence for concluding no deity exists.

 

[zemelo.franky]

That depends on what you take atheism to mean.

Lack of belief in God - "There is no evidence to show God exists"
Belief that God does not exist - "God doesn't exist"

Evidence for the second would be difficult to come up with.
Evidence for the first is simply all the evidence that says "This doesn't prove anything"

Or not?

I think you and I see it the same way; it's a piece of cake to find evidence against God, but for atheism? Don't think there is any, a sort of reverse-Godel; if a logically true God (God = 1) is impossible, then a logically false God (God = 0) would also be impossible. More simply, a "defined" God is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[Otherright]

Your proposal is a subtle variation on a straw man fallacy. I'm not buying into your fantasy that all atheists assert there is well grounded evidence for concluding no deity exists.

You know, there are other fallacies besides the straw man fallacy. Admittedly, you run across it a lot here. But I've noticed that you use it a lot. Where are the bias fallacies? Where is the false cause, the denial of the antecedent? I ask you, where indeed?

 

[Otherright]

Okay, let's just settle it this way. I will pose that none of you can propose one legitimate shred of evidence for Atheism that I can not defunct. Not one.

I'm all ears.

(Funny how it seems to be assumed I'm religious, which I'm not.)

I'll bet you can't solve an Epicurean.

 

[Sunstone]

You know, there are other fallacies besides the straw man fallacy. Admittedly, you run across it a lot here. But I've noticed that you use it a lot. Where are the bias fallacies? Where is the false cause, the denial of the antecedent? I ask you, where indeed?

Are you trying to pull a Red Herring fallacy then?