Does a Higher Being Exist?

Medic

impossible to prove without being self-referential

maybe is the best we can get

BaconToes

If you can't prove God is real, then it doesn't exist.

Medic

Nonsense. You cannot disprove god either.

Medic

As is commonly said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

BaconToes

If we can't disprove anything is real, then is everything real?

BaconToes

So are unicorns, goblins, fairies all real?

Medic

You can easily disprove unicorns and faries and goblins. God, as usually designed is not material and therefore cannot be disproved by corporeal means.

BaconToes

Disprove unicorns and fairies and goblins. I'm all ears.

Medic

Unicorns are corporeal things. We, with our corporeal senses have never seen or observed one. Therefore, they do not exist.

God is different. There's no rational basis for belief in or not in God, given it is impossible to prove either way. 

WilliamSchulz

Hey, 

If you check my debate "Why do you believe in God", you can see a longer list of responses from me, but here, I'll share a short reason about why God exists.

1. BaconToes, you are correct that you can't see God, however, God is not an imperial being. We can't see him, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. This is where the saying "We walk by faith, and not by sight" comes from. If we truly have to see something to make it true, then the 3,000 deaths per day from hunger never occured, or the Colosseum in Rome doesn't exist because I can't see it from America. Fallicious arguments? Yes! Therefore, God must be present, because although we can not see him, he exists at a spiritual level unknown to man.

WilliamSchulz

BaconToes said:

So are unicorns, goblins, fairies all real?

No, because they only exist in the pages of a book or by word of mouth. God, although in the Bible, is also present in human life via miracles performed, the sending of his son Jesus, and nature around us. 

WilliamSchulz

Medic said:

impossible to prove without being self-referential

maybe is the best we can get

Remember that God can be found in 2 ways, Scripture and Nature, the latter for people who don't know about the Bible, but think that there is more to life then a life without a goal.

BaconToes

WilliamSchulz said:

No, because they only exist in the pages of a book or by word of mouth. God, although in the Bible, is also present in human life via miracles performed, the sending of his son Jesus, and nature around us. 

What would the miracles be? Children starving in Africa, kids getting killed by cancer, etc. Your God must be very amazing and great. The Bible was written 3500 years ago, revised multiple times. It said that the Earth was 6000 years old. 

BaconToes

Medic said:

Unicorns are corporeal things. We, with our corporeal senses have never seen or observed one. Therefore, they do not exist.

God is different. There's no rational basis for belief in or not in God, given it is impossible to prove either way. 

Why is God is different just because you say so?
What if I said unicorns are not corporeal things either, that is is a spiritual thing? Just because you think something is that way doesn't mean it's correct

Nope

BaconToes You would expect to find unicorns if they lived on earth. God is a general term. We would except not finding what many people think god is. We can say that for most version of what people think god is we would not expect to find evidence so not finding evidence does not mean anything.

BaconToes

Nope said:

BaconToes You would expect to find unicorns if they lived on earth. God is a general term. We would except not finding what many people think god is. We can say that for most version of what people think god is we would not expect to find evidence so not finding evidence does not mean anything.

If you can't support your hypothesis with evidence, then God does not exist.

DrCereal

Medic said:

Unicorns are corporeal things. We, with our corporeal senses have never seen or observed one. Therefore, they do not exist.

God is different. There's no rational basis for belief in or not in God, given it is impossible to prove either way. 

(For the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming in my response that an independent reality exists.)
Your unicorn argument gives a pretty strong conclusion. Let me rewrite it as a syllogism to clarify the problem:

1. Unicorns are coporeal objects.
2. We have never observed/perceived such unicorns.
3. Therefore, unicorns must not exist.

As it currently stands, the conclusion the argument makes is a non sequitur. If we are to add the implied premise to your argument, it becomes:

1. Unicorns are coporeal objects.
2. Corporeal objects only exist if we can observe/perceive them.
3. We have never observed/perceived such unicorns.
4. Therefore, unicorns must not exist.

This argument is guilty of having a false premise (premise 2). We can not observe dark energy/matter, yet we know that they exist (through observations of their effects). This is something you should consider factoring into your argument. Furthermore, your second premise also assumes that we will never observe/perceive unicorns or their potential effects in the future so it is a hasty generalization. You can not disprove the existence of something. You can suggest that there is no reason to believe in that something, but you could never disprove it.

DrCereal

BaconToes said:

If we can't disprove anything is real, then is everything real?

No.

BaconToes

DrCereal said:

BaconToes said:

If we can't disprove anything is real, then is everything real?

No.

Exactly, since we can neither disprove nor prove that God is real, then it simply isn't. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. 
The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Nope

BaconToes You would need to support your claim with evidence. The way I see it is we can't know right know if god is real (this is why I don't bother with him). Deist Is a god who created the universe but does not intervene. We don't know how the universe started. If you believe in the big bang (I am leaning trod that theory as it has lot's of evidence) then we don't know why the big bang happened. So we can't prove anything their and sense that god would not intervene. The lack of evidence is expected and proves nothing.

BaconToes

Nope said:

BaconToes You would need to support your claim with evidence. The way I see it is we can't know right know if god is real (this is why I don't bother with him). Deist Is a god who created the universe but does not intervene. We don't know how the universe started. If you believe in the big bang (I am leaning trod that theory as it has lot's of evidence) then we don't know why the big bang happened. So we can't prove anything their and sense that god would not intervene. The lack of evidence is expected and proves nothing.

Medic said:

As is commonly said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Like @Medic said(even though it disproves his point) the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, also know as argument from ignorance.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

"Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them.  Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much.  People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven."

Basically, you are saying that God is real because you cannot prove that God is not real.

Most major beliefs are based on the lack of evidence rather than evidence.

Pogue

I think it depends on what your interpretation of "God" is. An all-powerful man sitting on a throne on clouds is to me, . 

BaconToes

Pogue said:

I think it depends on what your interpretation of "God" is. An all-powerful man sitting on a throne on clouds is to me, . 

"God" is a proper noun, someone Christians believe in. If it does sound to you, explain why. You can't just give a statement saying something without explaining it.

Pogue

@BaconToes
Ok, I will disprove the Christian God. In Christianity, the Bible is "The true word of God". It is the thing that proves God. So disproving the Bible disproves the Christian God. Let's disprove it prove it. The Mathematical Tabulation concerning the Year of Adam's Creation according to the Account of Moses is absolute. This Calculation coincides with Bishop James Ussher. The result was about 4000 BC (6,000 years ago. Even you agree with me because you said me that the Bible says it is.) Science proved the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If this is how long man has been on Earth, modern humans are at least 200,000 years old. What about the story of Noah, the Ark, and the flooding. There are 10's of millions of species on Earth. He needed 2 of every species. And what about the food needed? A boat would have to be ginormous. There are multiple problems with this. A few are where did he get enough wood in the middle east to build a ship of that size, how did an old man that is unskilled in building a ship build a ship of that size, where did his ark go, where is the evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago, to get every living creature, he would have had to explore the entire world, how did all the food stay fresh for a year, why didn't the meat-eating animals eat other animals, how did the humans on board not get a bunch of dieses given that they had to care for the animals, how did the animals get back to where they originated from after the flood, other civilizations lived in the same time period so why does their recorded history not incluid a flood, and how did the single-celluar and microscopic life get on board. The Bible is also very inconsistent. 

BaconToes

@Pogue
If I were you I correct your spelling and grammar.
What you said did not disprove God but rather the Bible. Even though that was the case, it was very informative.

Pogue

@BaconToes
I said I was going to disprove the Christian God which is reliant on the Bible to prove. So disproving the Bible disproves the Christian God. I guess I wasn't clear. Also, thank you.

PowerPikachu21

I might as well throw the Problem of Evil in here too. Evil exists (disease, war, flooding, etc). God is described as all loving and omnipotent. He'd of course want to remove this evil.

If god was willing but not able, he's not omnipotent. If he's able but not willing, then he is malevolent. If he's both willing and able, then from where does evil come? If he's neither willing or able, then why call him God?

If evil exists as a test, wouldn't his omniscience already know the results, basically meaning it's pointless violence? If it was Adam's fault he ate the apple, causing sin, why did the apple exist in the first place? Why did Adam have to eat it. God could've made the apple smell bad or something if it contained evil and sin.

Nope

PowerPikachu21 I am assuming you are taking about christian god. Not doing anything is arguable not malevolent. I would think god is able but not willing because god is God and that is the only way I can think bad things will happen. Not interfering in human matters in most cases not malevolent. Maybe he wan't us to take what we have learn from the bible and resolve are problems on are own. Is that not what the parent wan't for there child? (I am not a Christian)

BaconToes

PowerPikachu21 said:

I might as well throw the Problem of Evil in here too. Evil exists (disease, war, flooding, etc). God is described as all loving and omnipotent. He'd of course want to remove this evil.

If god was willing but not able, he's not omnipotent. If he's able but not willing, then he is malevolent. If he's both willing and able, then from where does evil come? If he's neither willing or able, then why call him God?

If evil exists as a test, wouldn't his omniscience already know the results, basically meaning it's pointless violence? If it was Adam's fault he ate the apple, causing sin, why did the apple exist in the first place? Why did Adam have to eat it. God could've made the apple smell bad or something if it contained evil and sin.

Can you define the term "evil"?
I'm not sure what stance you are on here.
Most Christians will believe that he is willing but he doesn't want to interfere with human nature. That basically means that he doesn't want to help. If he's not willing to help humankind, then why create us in the first place? Why choose specifically "humans"(since you guys don't believe in evolution. If God was a form of human and got the inspiration from himself, who created God? Christians dismiss the Big Bang because matter can't be there all along, yet they claim that no one created God, he was there all along.

Edril

Nope said:

PowerPikachu21 I am assuming you are taking about christian god. Not doing anything is arguable not malevolent. I would think god is able but not willing because god is God and that is the only way I can think bad things will happen. Not interfering in human matters in most cases not malevolent. Maybe he wan't us to take what we have learn from the bible and resolve are problems on are own. Is that not what the parent wan't for there child? (I am not a Christian)

If you saw a child being tortured in an alley, and you knew for sure that you could easily stop it with no negative repercussions, would you say it is not malevolent for you to decide to ignore it and allow it to continue? How can you justify inaction here? Is the little girl supposed to just solve the problem of being dominated by an adult on her own?

This is what an omniscient, omnipotent being does millions of times every day, in millions of different ways.

Mike

God is a construct within one’s philosophy; whether one is of faith, or faithless. 

DrCereal

Mike said:

God is a construct within one’s philosophy; whether one is of faith, or faithless. 

How do you mean?

Judaism

@DrCereal

He's saying G-d's subjective, which I guess is sort of true, depending on the person and their connection with the Divine. 

Eyes2See

To me he is. 

Judaism

Eyes2See 

Yes, while G-d an be subjective, at the same time, He must be objective too, otherwise, you don't have a G-d, just ideas, or what you'd like to believe in, i.e., such as an afterlife for comfort, purpose in life so you feel significant, etc. 

Are you a Mormon? How is G-d subjective?

Eyes2See

To me God is both objective and Subjective, however the more I personally have gotten to know God, the more subjective he becomes.To me God isn't just some idea that I believe in, he is very real, and that is based off of the continues feelings and experiences I have as I strive to know him personally. 

Judaism

@Eyes2See

That's great to hear!

AbhigyanShanker

Only those who have experienced God know that he exists. He has no physical form.He is everywhere.

Pogue

@AbhigyanShanker
Why is God a he? I never understood that. 

Judaism

@Pogue - well technically, G-d is a It - the Ein Sof, but if one wishes to be practical here and not feel that G-d is not in touch with our reality, we "can" call It a He. But so can we call It a She, too! This is the Shechinah (i.e., or the feminine manifestation of the divine which we can relate to in our world with our senses). G-d is only in the masculine form when we're referring to It's transcendence, in that case, please refer to It as "the Holy One, blessed be He." When we pray via the Amidah - the entire congregation acts the part of the shechinah, saying in unison, "G-d, open my lips so that my mouth may speak Your praises." Hence, the Shechinah offers our prayers to Him - or It. But they are one of the same. Furthermore, when we do a mitzvot (good deed), or study Torah, the Shechinah and the Holy One are brought together, sort of the likes of how a married couple are brought together as one. This is not to say that G-d isn't "already" one to begin with, it is the Christian concept that G-d is made up three beings and has no place in Judaism. Technically, what we mean by combining these "elements" of G-d is to explain the verse, "On that day, G‑d will be One and His name will be One." This concept is very deep and is expounded by the Zohar at great lengths, so I'm not going to try and explain it all here in a few mere sentences. 

Some Christians claim the Zohar sanctions the trinity, but they're quoting it out of context and the thought that the rabbis would try and hide this truth from the masses, is laughable at best. 

I hope my short response cleared up some issues, always glad to help !

Pogue

@Judaism
Yeah, that cleared it up! Thank you!

Judaism

@Pogue, glad I could be of use! Shalom to your family.

jgestiot

While it is not possible to prove that a god does not exist, it is possible to prove that a lot of people who believe in a god right now in this world are completely wrong. 

The split between religious populations is roughly Christianity 2.3 billions followers, Islam 1.7 billion, Hinduism 1.1 billion, Buddhism 500 millions, Shintoism 105 millions, Daoism 95 million, Sikhism 30 millions, Judaism 14 millions, Muism 10 millions and Cao Dai 7 millions.

Only one of all the contradicting religions can be true. This means that in the worst case scenario, the Muism followers are right and at least 5 billion people around the world spend their time believing in nonsense. If Islam is true, it leaves 2.3 billion Christians hanging, and so on...

Judaism

jgestiot

Your philosophy is very frightening. . . entertaining the thought that only one faith can be true doesn't matter how many believers it carries. As a Jew, it doesn't matter to me how many followers there are on Islam's side, the majority can be duped quite often, just look at what Hitler did with Germany.

In Judaism, the Talmud tells us that all non-believers in the Jewish faith, even atheists, can still attain salvation in the next world and World to Come with the arrival of the Messiah. 

BaconToes

anonymousdebater said:

@Pogue ;
Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.

Since Christians don't believe the idea of evolution, why is it irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations? If there are two of each animal, 8.7 million different species, and with 80% undiscovered, That is more than 16 million animals. As your article stated: 
CORRECTION: A previous headline on this story suggested that Ballard believed he found evidence of Noah’s Ark. He only found evidence of the flood.
After the last ice age(ended approximately 12000 years before) flooding was common.

Judaism

@BaconToes

The rabbis always saw Noah's flood as being a local flood, hence, Noah didn't need all of the animals on the ark, only those who were threatened. 

Pogue

anonymousdebater said:

@Pogue ;
Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.

How is it irrational? There were probably more animals 4000 years ago considering that humans are making other animals extinct and 4000 years is not enough time for a new life form to evolve. Also, to get every animal on Earth, he would have had to have traveled to the new world. This is something that someone from the old world (excluding the natives that traveled across the Bering Strait long before) would never do until 3000 years later. He would have had to get every insect and every micro-animal. There are expectations of 8 to 50 million more species out there that we haven't identified yet, Mr. Edwards said. Other experts' estimates of the numbers range up to 100 million. And zebras, penguins, vultures, pandas, and antelope all need very different temperatures, food, and habitats.140 meters long according to the Bible. However, most scientists agree that still would not have been enough to hold the millions of species that have been discovered on earth. Where is the evidence of universal population bottlenecks? Except for a few species known to have recently recovered from near extinction, animal life on Earth shows far too much genetic diversity to be descended from only a pair of Ark-borne ancestors a few thousand years ago. How could the human population go from 8 a few decades before the pyramids were being built, to 7.6 billion now? How do all these species recover from only 2 of each left? Enough water to cover the entire Earth to the height of the tallest mountains would require a much larger sphere of liquid. Where did that extra water come from, and more importantly — where did it go? Your source does not provide any evidence to support the Ark. It was a global flood not anything from the Mediterrain. 

https://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2008/0515/103336-noahsark/
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/

Pogue

Judaism said:

@BaconToes

The rabbis always saw Noah's flood as being a local flood, hence, Noah didn't need all of the animals on the ark, only those who were threatened. 

That is not what the Bible said. 

Pogue

BaconToes said:

anonymousdebater said:

@Pogue ;
Your argument about the age of the Earth is invalid because many Christians disagree with the young Earth idea.
For Noah's Ark, see https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/evidence-noahs-flood-ark-real-robert-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html
Plus, it seems irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations.

Since Christians don't believe the idea of evolution, why is it irrational to base the number of animals in Noah's Ark off of current calculations? If there are two of each animal, 8.7 million different species, and with 80% undiscovered, That is more than 16 million animals. As your article stated: 
CORRECTION: A previous headline on this story suggested that Ballard believed he found evidence of Noah’s Ark. He only found evidence of the flood.
After the last ice age(ended approximately 12000 years before) flooding was common.

Was it common in 2000 BC though? That is when Noah's Ark is set to have happened. 

Judaism

@Pogue, 

The Bible has been mistranslated. see the original Hebrew, it said "land", not "world." The Talmud echoes this sentiment. Learn Hebrew. Study Scripture, and come to the right conclusion.