John believes in a god, Joe doesn't. Who's right?

[We Never Know]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

 

[John53]

Why does it have to be an argument, why can't it be a discussion?

 

[John53]

And Johns are generally right but not in your example.

 

[We Never Know]

Why does it have to be an argument, why can't it be a discussion?

I agree with that. But it hardly happens

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The problem is, that is doesn't really tell us much. What is John's argument. Is he a genius? Is Joe? What is the content of the argument, or are we supposed to fill that in with our own minds

 

[We Never Know]

The problem is, that is doesn't really tell us much. What is John's argument. Is he a genius? Is Joe? What is the content of the argument, or are we supposed to fill that in with our own minds

A god can neither be proven nor disproven which shows the argument is nothing more than a personal choice of arguing.
Why would people argue about something that can't be known or shown....unless its just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

 

[The Hammer]

Who's right?

Yes

 

[Trailblazer]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

I believe that John is right even though that can never be proven.
People argue because of ego. The less we need to be right the less we will argue.
Moreover, if we know what we believe is true then there is no need to convince other people.
I stopped arguing long ago. People are free to believe whatever they want to and so am I.

 

[Trailblazer]

And Johns are generally right but not in your example.

I believe that John is right in his example but there is no way I am going to try to convince you of that...
The only way you will find out is when the time comes to find out.

 

[John53]

A god can neither be proven nor disproven which shows the argument is nothing more than a personal choice of arguing.
Why would people argue about something that can't be known or shown....unless its just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

Probably because it's an emotive topic and both sides go in feeling they are correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why does it have to be an argument, why can't it be a discussion?

Because some people insist on turning it into an argument and that is when I bow out.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes

No

 

[The Hammer]

No

Ad infinitum

 

[epronovost]

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Isn't that fallacious way of presenting the problem (it begs the question btw)? I mean, if there is no life after death, it would indeed be impossible to speak to the dead. Thus, if Joe is correct, neither of them should be able to communicate with the dead. The fact that neither can is evidence towards Joe's hypothesis.

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

While certainty isn't something that is always achievable and is in fact incredibly rare, that doesn't mean that humans can't think in shades of grey or in a probabilistic manner. If certainty isn't possible, why not argue about reasonability? While neither John or Joe can be certain of anything and neither can confirm their respective belief and convert it into a fact, it might very well be possible distinguish which belief is most probable and reasonable given the available body of facts.

 

[QuestioningMind]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

What about Jim who doesn't think that a god does exist but doesn't take the position that a god doesn't exist? That's me. I don't believe that a god does exist, because I'm still waiting to be convinced by some form of verifiable evidence.

 

[1213]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?...

I would start by listening their arguments. For me the one who has best arguments wins.

 

[Mock Turtle]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

It doesn't matter in itself, but it might when we have what usually follows - a multitude of religious beliefs dividing us humans, often all claiming to be correct, and often many willing to fight over. And for what?

 

[Brickjectivity]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

Its fine unless the discussion turns to policy for the community. What should the common laws be? Let us suppose that people care about the afterlife. Then they may care about how policy affects that afterlife, and so they may wish to set policy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why does it have to be an argument, why can't it be a discussion?

It invariably turns from discussion to argument because one side has nothing whatever going for it, and therefore cannot really discuss, but only make unsupportable claims.

Joe, on the other hand, can point to a wealth of what we already do know, as humans, and demonstrate how they all seem to point to his case. He can bring up, for example, what happens to consciousness under an anaesthetic, that would be assumed not to happen when the brain is turned to soup. He can point to the answers science seems to provide for how things work -- and demonstrate that there's practically no room for "gods" to intervene. He can go further and demonstrate that, except in some old books nobody can really attest to, "gods" never do seem to intervene at all anymore.

But while Joe is making those arguments, what is John left with? "This is what I believe! This is what I KNOW! So it must be true, and so there!"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

John and Joe have an argument. John thinks there is a god and life after death.
Joe doesn't think there is a god or life after death.

Who's right?

Isn't their argument pointless being neither John or Joe can speak with the dead, so in reality neither one knows?

Being neither one knows why do they argue? Is it just human nature to argue and we will find reasons to do so regardless?

If they have no criteria to their points, I'd say it's an empty argument. I find the problem is Joe and John are looking at their arguments from different foundations. They can't win if they don't agree or even know the rules of the playing field.