• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Existence of God - Can Debate Satisfy a Theist?

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
Belief in God is a very personal belief, so i am not sure how the proof of no God would look like, would it be scientific proof of something not existing?

But i say Go ahead to disprove my personal belief. Its their right to do so, since theists always try to prove God to the non believers:)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
As you suggest, not all theists do that; but those who do phrase the question so that they don't have to explain their own position ─ perhaps thereby giving rise to the reasonable suspicion they can't in fact explain it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
No. :)

Besides, it would be like accepting the existence of a circular earth until someone provides physical evidence that it is flat. :)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist
IMO:
1) Not all theists "predetermined" that they accept existence of God...some just "know"
2) Kind of a problem "to provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist"

do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
Strange question, but:
IF I would have "predetermined" that God exists
THEN I do not hope that somebody could ever satisfy me in providing evidence that God does not exist?

existence-of-god-can-debate-satisfy-a-theist
* Debate can not satisfy me at all
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?

I'm never trying to convince someone that God doesn't exist. The most I'd ever seek to do is make them question what they're told, and take personal responsibility for any adherence to dogma. That doesn't apply only to religion, but any strongly held belief where there could be deference to authority.

(Political, for example...or even certain extensions of atheism)
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I couldn't say - I'm not like the theist described. If I was that kind of theist, physically proving the gods don't exist would be a nonsensical paradox because the every evidence provided couldn't exist. In any case, existence isn't exactly a hard bar to clear and fixating on that misses the point of a theistic worldview.
 

DKH

Member
Salixincendium said:
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?

An individual who claims to be a theist will not deny or question the existence of God. If, he/she did, they are not a theist (by definition). So, debate on the existence of God, between a theist and unbeliever is useless…Unless, the debate was intended to enrich the unbeliever's understanding of the reality of God's existence. Thus, to a theist, the only propose to be involved in such a debate is to inform the unbeliever of God's existence…

Note: This posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Why would existence not be a hard bar to clear?

If one does not restrict "exists" to narrowed parameters of space and time, anything that can be discussed and debated at all already clears the bar. The question should never be "does X exist" but "in what manner does X exist" or "how can I as a human know and experience X."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If one does not restrict "exists" to narrowed parameters of space and time, anything that can be discussed and debated at all already clears the bar.
The issue that I see with this approach is that our concepts are representations of objects; the concepts aren't the objects themselves.

To illustrate this, ask a random person to draw you a picture of a bicycle or a clarinet from memory with as much detail as they can manage.

It's fine to say that "existence as a concept" is a form of existence, but unless the concept is the object, then the existence of a concept says nothing about the existence of the object the concept represents.

This is especially true about many people's gods: anytime someone says that their god is "beyond human comprehension," they're implicitly arguing that it's impossible for any conceptual representation of their god to actually be their god.

The question should never be "does X exist" but "in what manner does X exist" or "how can I as a human know and experience X."
My point is that we should also ask ourselves "is this thing that exists really X?"

If the bike that won last year's Tour de France "exists as a concept" in my mind, but my concept reflects a misunderstanding of how derailleurs work so the bike in my mind wouldn't be able to shift, is my concept really "the bike that won last year's Tour de France?"
 

chinu

chinu
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?
The one who debate on existence of God is NOT a theist.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The issue that I see with this approach is that our concepts are representations of objects; the concepts aren't the objects themselves.

What about concepts that are not representations of objects? There are a lot of those. Ask a random person to draw a picture of an idea. The best you will get is them drawing an object that represents the concept, usually with them knowing full well that the object is a symbolic stand-in for the concept. Gods in particular operate like this - many gods are concepts that are represented symbolically with objects (such as through anthropomorphisms) to help convey their meaning. Certainly the prevailing theism in Western culture - classical monotheism - is like this. Their god is isn't referring to an object and their theology goes out of its way to emphasize how the material world or objects isn't god. As part of their argument goes, god is that which is fundamentally greater and "spiritual" (conceptual, whatever) existence is fundamentally greater than "physical" (objective, whatever) existence. Or at least that's the general gist of what I was taught in a philosophy of religion class a while back. I forget which theologian made that particular argument.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If theists predetermined that they accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence or proof He/She/It does not exist -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them in providing evidence that God does not exist?

I see the issue is that God has already been proved via the way God wishes to be proved.

Logically if God exists, then it is impossible for science to disprove God.

If God does not exist, then science should be able to negate God's way of communicating with humanity.

Again, the problem is God offers that all have the capacity to know God and God gives that message to the hearts God chooses.

I see that for eternity, the quandary will remain. As more hearts find God, the world will reflect this and as more hearts choose not to accept God, the world will also reflect this.

In my opinion, science cannot and will never find evidence to disprove God

Regards Tony
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What about concepts that are not representations of objects? There are a lot of those. Ask a random person to draw a picture of an idea. The best you will get is them drawing an object that represents the concept, usually with them knowing full well that the object is a symbolic stand-in for the concept. Gods in particular operate like this - many gods are concepts that are represented symbolically with objects (such as through anthropomorphisms) to help convey their meaning. Certainly the prevailing theism in Western culture - classical monotheism - is like this. Their god is isn't referring to an object and their theology goes out of its way to emphasize how the material world or objects isn't god.
That's not "the prevailing theism in Western culture" at all. In mainstream Christianity and Islam, God:

  • Literally created the physical world and everything in it.
  • Appeared before - or had divine beings appear before - prophets who are upheld as actual historical figures.
  • (At least in Christianity) walked the Earth in a physical body.
  • Gets credit for physical acts (called "miracles") all the time: guiding the paths of bullets on the battlefield and out-of-control cars near playgrounds, placing money where it will be found by the needy, etc.
  • Hears requests for physical deeds (shrinking of tumours, etc.) with the expectation that he's capable of carrying them out.
In fact, the idea that Christ - God the Son - merely had the appearance of being real and wasn't a real human being with physical form is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church... i.e. the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world:

Docetism - Wikipedia

In mainstream monotheism, God interacts - or at least is purported to interact - with the physical world just like any other physical object. The only time that God doesn't seem to be like a physical object is when you ask the theist to explain how their belief is justified.

As part of their argument goes, god is that which is fundamentally greater and "spiritual" (conceptual, whatever) existence is fundamentally greater than "physical" (objective, whatever) existence. Or at least that's the general gist of what I was taught in a philosophy of religion class a while back. I forget which theologian made that particular argument.
If you can figure out which theologian suggested that "conceptual existence" and "spiritual existence" are the same thing, I'd love to know. I get the impression that this bit is an add-on from you.

Did your philosophy of religion class also get into apophatic theology? It's relatively common, especially in Christianity and Judaism, for adherents to argue that God can't be conceived at all, and can only be approached by considering what God is not.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
The one who debate on existence of God is NOT a theist.

Yet you continue to post debate topics of God's existence in General Religious Debates. Is this your way of telling us you're not really a theist?
 

chinu

chinu
Yet you continue to post debate topics of God's existence in General Religious Debates. Is this your way of telling us you're not really a theist?
Am NOT theist, I try and love to become one. :)

Do atheists try to become atheists, or they already one ?
 
Top