What created God? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

What created God?
in Religion

like seriously what created God then. And who wrote all this and put it together in a book. I just think it was made to control us with fear. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • 대왕광개토대왕광개토 201 Pts
    edited September 22
    When someone claims that everything has its own cause, it is contradictory to claim that God doesn't have its own cause. The question "What created God?" seems impossible to answer. 
    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 816 Pts
    If time began with the universe there is no before it. There would not be any need for a creator. 

    Whats worse still for a believers position is that  they rely on ridiculous contradictory books of childish nonsense in an attempt to persuade themselves and  others that each and every one of their particular god claims is correct and without flaw.

    AlofRI
  • People can neither prove God exists nor that he doesn't.  This is impossible to answer.
  • Using Occam's razor we can conclude that humans created gods and the corresponding literature... 
    AlofRIZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • I don't know. Probably some innocent person that wanted to be all philosophical or just to make a cool story to tell his kids. But then it became so popular in the Renaissance that it was rewritten and translated so many times that everyone bows down to it and whatever came from it without much of any sort of evidence. And now people still do, even though a lot of people don't even read that book it came from because everyone knows how glaring the contradictions, discrepancies, and immoral practices that book uses.
    DuaneHall
  • To me, for something to exist there must be some proof, or at least evidence that it may. A book, written by man about storied "evidence" that comes from an ancient time when everything that couldn't be understood had to be an act of some "god". The Emperor Constantine seems to be thee guy that balled all the stories together and "created" thee book. Aptly named The Bible, which means "little library", in one ancient language or another, I have read, is just that. A "library" of short stories attributed to a single (or unified) "God". The ancient "cruel one" and the new loving one …. a convenience to the mind, I guess.

    IMO, it is all mythology. I haven't seen one iota of proof, one instance of factual, visible evidence that this "God" exists. We don't know everything but we know a hell of a lot more than we did in "Biblical Times". What used to be blamed on the gods is now explained in believable, observable fact or theory that makes sense. 

    If it were not for the Bible (or the Koran, etc.), and the people who teach it (them) to children (through adulthood), there would be no gods today. Too many things are now obvious, or, at least, explainable. But, the myth continues. As Mark Twain put it: 
    "It is full of interest. It has some noble poetry in it and some clever fables, some blood drenched history and some good morals, a wealth of obscenity and upwards of a thousand lies." 
    This I CAN believe because it makes sense.
  • @MichaelElpers ;

    So, until it IS proven, I choose NOT to believe in this (these) entities that have been the excuse for wars (and sacrifices), for centuries. There is almost as much cruelty attributed to religion(s) as goodness. 

    Jefferson said: "Nature intended me for the tranquil pursuits of science by rendering them my supreme light." (Smart man). 
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    To believe in God, or to not believe in God, is completely voluntary.

    Nature is nature, and Science in general, can't explain everything.

    An individual can hypothisize, self rationalize, or choose to make assumptions, based on individual opinion, and that individual opinion, is just as good as the next one is.

    Again, an individual only knows as much as he/she can "Understand," or refuse to understand, based on how an individuals "mind, via Science," dictates towards his/her, own heart?

    I believe, that in the vastness of the space that surrounds our own small planet, we barely know anything, because we're limited primarily by the minute amount of information, that we are surrounded by.

    Or the minute, understanding, that some of us voluntarily educate ourselves with?

    Like voluntarily believing in God, or not believing in God.

    Because, if there is a such thing as a "Proper Science," that is maybe needed, to fully understand God with, we're not there yet.

    Because humanity, is too busy being self destructive, and destructive towards one another. 




    ZeusAres42
  • @TKDB

    I think I can understand that. Nowadays modern Christians don't want to use evidence or whatnot to help prove their own beliefs and whatnot. In reality, they mostly use faith, which in most cases is just believing things without any sort of proof. And a lot of these people's faith is so big that it spills into arrogance. A lot of arguments I hear are mostly a fallacy using arguments from ignorance like "I can't explain this, so it must be God!" or "I believe God exists so it must be the truth!" which teaches their faith as fact when that's not even part of faith's definition. Some use circular arguments, like "How do you know the Bible is true?" "Because it's the word from God." "How do you know that?' "Because it's in the Bible." and it repeats. There are other fallacies I don't remember at the top of my head and I'll name them when I remember soon.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 20
    @RichardCarter2021

    What I'm getting at, is that none of us currently, were around to witness Jesus in person, and to hear him speak in person.

    And even back then, the Priests in his day, went after him, just like the anti religious individuals of today, go after those individuals who choose to believe in God, Jesus, or the Bible.

    It's the same difference, between then and now.

    And I am of the impression, that those Priests during those days of Jesus, didn't understand him, or didn't want to understand him?

    So they crucifying him, only helped to push his word's and messaging, from then, all the way up until this modern day, that we are a part of.

    So unless the Science of today, is able to dissect the Bible, from the inside out, and disprove the word of Jesus, and God that way.

    The anti religious, and the religious individuals, are going to go back and forth, because the modern man of today, like the Priests back in the days of Jesus, still, do not have, the Proper Science to understand God then?

    And that's my position. 

  • The problem is partly due to language.

    God is not a "thing" like matter or energy. All "things" require a cause. God does not.

    The reason is because all "things" have a beginning, and because of that beginning, a first cause is necessary.

    God had no beginning. He simply has always existed. But even that is misleading. God does not exist in time, thus it isn't that God is very, very, old, but that time doesn't really apply to God.

    He existed before time and exists outside of time. In fact, time is part of what He created. We make a mistake when we think God is a "thing" like created things.

    Everything about God is greater than our human language can graspe. For example,

    *Omnipotence doesn't just mean God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in existence is His power. There is no power other than His.

    *Omniscience doesn't just mean God knows everything that has been and will be, but that God also knows everything that could have been, but didn't happen. He knows all actualities, but knows all possibilities too.

    *Omnipresent doesn't just mean God is everywhere, but that everywhere is in God. Every spacetime loci in existence exists inside of Him! 

    Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and in contingent on anything)

    One of the reasons the bible has been so highly esteemed throughout history is because it contains complex, intelligent, and astute ideas like these.
    PlaffelvohfenDeeAlofRI
  • ethang5 said:
    The problem is partly due to language.

    God is not a "thing" like matter or energy. All "things" require a cause. God does not.

    The reason is because all "things" have a beginning, and because of that beginning, a first cause is necessary.

    God had no beginning. He simply has always existed. But even that is misleading. God does not exist in time, thus it isn't that God is very, very, old, but that time doesn't really apply to God.

    He existed before time and exists outside of time. In fact, time is part of what He created. We make a mistake when we think God is a "thing" like created things.

    Everything about God is greater than our human language can graspe. For example,

    *Omnipotence doesn't just mean God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in existence is His power. There is no power other than His.

    *Omniscience doesn't just mean God knows everything that has been and will be, but that God also knows everything that could have been, but didn't happen. He knows all actualities, but knows all possibilities too.

    *Omnipresent doesn't just mean God is everywhere, but that everywhere is in God. Every spacetime loci in existence exists inside of Him! 

    Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and in contingent on anything)

    One of the reasons the bible has been so highly esteemed throughout history is because it contains complex, intelligent, and astute ideas like these.
    Since when was deism and theism the same thing?
    PlaffelvohfenDee

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • @ZeusAres42

    >Since when was deism and theism the same thing?

    Sorry, I didn't even know they had been made the same thing.

    So when were they made the same thing? And how does that relate to my post?
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 685 Pts
    edited September 21
    ethang5 said:
    @ZeusAres42

    >Since when was deism and theism the same thing?

    Sorry, I didn't even know they had been made the same thing.

    So when were they made the same thing?
    Erm, pretty sure that was the question I asked you. Have you actually got an answer instead of parroting me in a round about way?

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • Using Occam's razor we can conclude that humans created gods and the corresponding literature... 
    This is true. Some people like to say that man was created in God's image. I contend, however, that God was created in man's image.
    AlofRIPlaffelvohfen

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 21
    @ZeusAres42

    Your question to ethang5:

    "Since when was deism and theism the same thing?"

    ethang5 said:
    @ZeusAres42

    >Since when was deism and theism the same thing?

    Sorry, I didn't even know they had been made the same thing.

    So when were they made the same thing?
    "Erm, pretty sure that was the question I asked you. Have you actually got an answer instead of parroting me in a round about way?"

    Using Occam's razor we can conclude that humans created gods and the corresponding literature... 
    "This is true. Some people like to say that man was created in God's image. I contend, however, that God was created in man's image."


    @ZeusAres42


    "What's the difference between a deist and theist?

    theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government."



  • Thanks TKDB for copying and pasting the obvious. FYI, if you are going to copy and paste definitions from other sources at least referenced and credit them.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 22
    @ZeusAres42

    Each posting tells it's own story.

    Who you reference is self explanatory.

    It's not hard to decipher. 

    And I noticed how you left the below alone, while at the same time, what you chose to lament over?

    "What's the difference between a deist and theist?

    theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation. A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government."

    @ZeusAres42.

    So, thank you again for another Educational nugget, from your growing archive of commentary. 
    ZeusAres42ethang5
  • The idea of god comes simply from anthropocentrism: humans assume that the world revolves around them, and everything that exists is a result of someone relatable by humans building all this. 

    The truth is, however, that humans are a very tiny, insignificant part of the Universe.The Universe does not have to work by ideas easy for us to understand, nor does it have had to be created by some living being. And even if the god actually exists, it is unlikely to be anything like human religions imagine it to be, nor does it care about humans much. There are probably trillions other intelligent species in the Universe, and there is no reason for anyone looking at it from above to pay any particular attention to us.

    Whenever learning the truth about the world, one has to cast aside their personal preferences and look instead at raw data. The interpretation of data does not have to be very intuitive or understandable, it only has to match that data and produce testable predictions. Anthropocentrism should be thrown away, and we should become cold robots analysing the raw data, if we are to learn anything at all.
    대왕광개토ZeusAres42ethang5Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesar said:
    The idea of god comes simply from anthropocentrism: humans assume that the world revolves around them, and everything that exists is a result of someone relatable by humans building all this. 

    The truth is, however, that humans are a very tiny, insignificant part of the Universe.The Universe does not have to work by ideas easy for us to understand, nor does it have had to be created by some living being. And even if the god actually exists, it is unlikely to be anything like human religions imagine it to be, nor does it care about humans much. There are probably trillions other intelligent species in the Universe, and there is no reason for anyone looking at it from above to pay any particular attention to us.

    Whenever learning the truth about the world, one has to cast aside their personal preferences and look instead at raw data. The interpretation of data does not have to be very intuitive or understandable, it only has to match that data and produce testable predictions. Anthropocentrism should be thrown away, and we should become cold robots analysing the raw data, if we are to learn anything at all.
    You made a great argument here. The only thing I can't agree with is that we need to be like cold robots to throw out anthropocentrism but that's for a whole other discussion.

    But I do agree that the world would be a somewhat that better place without anthropocentrism.

    I also wonder if it is because of this anthropocentrism that many theists and some religious scripture talk about God in anthropomorphic terms. This is one of the reasons I have a hard time accepting theistic ideas. In other words, I really don't see any good reason to believe in a God that is basically like a human being but with superman traits. 

    On the other hand, I am more open to deism whilst also remaining some skepticism. This deity would have set everything in motion. This Deity, however, is something that cannot be defined or described by humans, nor can humans answer what created it, if anything at all. This is something beyond human comprehension. Humans cannot also know anything about this deity, or whether it even exists or not.


    To conclude the question about what created God whether that be a theistic God or a Deistic God, is impossible to answer since both concepts are unfalsifiable ideas; ideas that cannot be tested. Skeptics alike also have a hard time accepting a God, especially one that has been anthropomorphized.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    edited September 22
    @ZeusAres42
    ethang5 said:
    @ZeusAres42 

    >Since when was deism and theism the same thing?

    Sorry, I didn't even know they had been made the same thing.

    So when were they made the same thing?
    >Erm, pretty sure that was the question I asked you.

    Was that in dispute?

    >Have you actually got an answer instead of parroting me in a round about way?

    You couldn't tell that I do not think theism and deism are the same thing? OK here....

    >Since when was deism and theism the same thing?

    Deism and theism are not he same thing, I doubt highly that they at any time became the same thing. So I cannot tell you when they became the same thing, as I do not believe they ever became the same thing. Do you?

    Does that answer make you less unhappy?

    I still have no clue why you asked or what it has to do with my post.
    ZeusAres42DeePlaffelvohfen

  • You had to search the difference between deism and theism and then copy and paste that definition within your posts without even referencing the source. You're right; that wasn't hard to decipher at all; I could spot that from a mile off. Have you got some work less derivative at all instead? And something that continues in a tangent style rather than allowing us to go off-topic?

    How about when you're ready to have a mature adult discussion instead of some silly High school like argument let me know. Until then, I'm not interested. 

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    edited September 23
    The bottom line is that the error is in the assumptions of the question, like asking why don't people at the south pole fall off the earth.

    Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and not contingent on anything)

    There is no logical reason to believe God had to be created or that God was "created" by man.

    That is like a bunch of animated shirts claiming there is no tailor because the tailor looks too much like them.

    Where comes the silly assumption that tailor made shirts would NOT look like the tailor?

    If God had a beginning, He would have a creator. He has no beginning, and thus, no creation date, or creator.

    Infinite regress works only for created things bound in time.

    God is timeless and uncreated.
    PlaffelvohfenDeecalebsica
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 23
    @ZeusAres42

    "You're right; that wasn't hard to decipher at all;

    I could spot that from a mile off.
    Have you got some work less derivative at all instead?
    And something that continues in a tangent style rather than allowing us to go off-topic?

    How about when you're ready to have a mature adult discussion instead of some silly High school like argument let me know.
    Until then, I'm not interested."


    @ZeusAres42

    And, thank you again, for another Educational nugget, from your growing archive of commentary. 

    And the below, addresses the theme of the forum. 

    "What created God?"

    To believe in God, or to not believe in God, is completely voluntary.

    Nature is nature, and Science in general, can't explain everything.

    An individual can hypothisize, self rationalize, or choose to make assumptions, based on individual opinion, and that individual opinion, is just as good as the next one is.

    Again, an individual only knows as much as he/she can "Understand," or refuse to understand, based on how an individuals "mind, via Science," dictates towards his/her, own heart?

    I believe, that in the vastness of the space that surrounds our own small planet, we barely know anything, because we're limited primarily by the minute amount of information, that we are surrounded by.

    Or the minute, understanding, that some of us voluntarily educate ourselves with?

    Like voluntarily believing in God, or not believing in God.

    Because, if there is a such thing as a "Proper Science," that is maybe needed, to fully understand God with, we're not there yet.

    Because humanity, is too busy being self destructive, and destructive towards one another.  
    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    "You had to search the difference between deism and theism and then copy and paste that definition within your posts without even referencing the source."


    For @ZeusAres42:

    https://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/theist-deist-atheist-agnostic

    "Brewer's: Theist, Deist, Atheist, Agnostic

    A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.


    The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding."

    Source: Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, E. Cobham Brewer, 1894
    ZeusAres42
  • This is self-contradictory. If somebody answers "What created God", then you'll ask again who created the creator, and then who created the creator of the creator and so on. It's simply irrational and impossible. What makes sense is that He created everything including time other than Himself, no one created Him. The created brain will have a limit eventually when it comes to understanding the Creator. That's where the soul/self (something not physical like the brain) comes into play which translates into faith/belief.
  • ethang5 said:
    The problem is partly due to language.

    God is not a "thing" like matter or energy. All "things" require a cause. God does not.

    The reason is because all "things" have a beginning, and because of that beginning, a first cause is necessary.

    God had no beginning. He simply has always existed. But even that is misleading. God does not exist in time, thus it isn't that God is very, very, old, but that time doesn't really apply to God.

    He existed before time and exists outside of time. In fact, time is part of what He created. We make a mistake when we think God is a "thing" like created things.

    Everything about God is greater than our human language can graspe. For example,

    *Omnipotence doesn't just mean God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in existence is His power. There is no power other than His.

    *Omniscience doesn't just mean God knows everything that has been and will be, but that God also knows everything that could have been, but didn't happen. He knows all actualities, but knows all possibilities too.

    *Omnipresent doesn't just mean God is everywhere, but that everywhere is in God. Every spacetime loci in existence exists inside of Him! 

    Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and in contingent on anything)

    One of the reasons the bible has been so highly esteemed throughout history is because it contains complex, intelligent, and astute ideas like these.
    So angels and devils can both be considered a thing like energy and matter?
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 685 Pts
    edited September 29
    ethang5 said:


    God is timeless and uncreated.
    You forgot indefinable as well as also having Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability).

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • There's a fundamental flaw with the question "What created God".  The issue here is that Science and it's mechanism and rules cannot be used to explain God or even the possibility of God.

    "Supernatural" means: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

    If God is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...then none of our naturalistic laws or expectations can be applied to God and therefor the question "What created God" is equally ridiculous as asking "What is the difference in elevation between Jupiter and Earth"?  The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise.

    Science cannot be used to explain God anymore than Geology can be used to explain Quantum Physics.  

    ZeusAres42
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @대왕광개토

    >So angels and devils can both be considered a thing like energy and matter?

    In a way yes. Created things come in two categories, the physical and the spiritual. Men are physical and angels are spirit, though both are created things.

    And both must obey the spiritual or physical laws of their realms. Both need a creator. God is different, and completely unique as there is only one instance of Him in existence. God is a singularity.
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    edited October 2
    @ZeusAres42

    >You forgot indefinable as well as also having Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability).

    So? A god who was testable by created men would not be the God of the bible.

    The concept of Unfalsifiability doesn't make any sense when applied to a singularity.

    God just IS. And our puny languages and thoughts can never define or comprehend Him. That is how it should be, if God is who and how He says He is.   
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @Vaulk

    >If God is beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature...then none of our naturalistic laws or expectations can be applied to God and therefor the question "What created God" is equally ridiculous as asking "What is the difference in elevation between Jupiter and Earth"?  The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise.

    Thank you kind Sir! That was a most excellent post!

    Theists do not necessarily want the atheist to believe as they do, but it is great when the atheist understands the argument of the theist even if he disbelieves it.

    The question is irrational, but it is difficult to get the atheist to see why it is. Thanks.
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    ethang5 said:
    The problem is partly due to language.

    God is not a "thing" like matter or energy. All "things" require a cause. God does not.

    The reason is because all "things" have a beginning, and because of that beginning, a first cause is necessary.

    God had no beginning. He simply has always existed. But even that is misleading. God does not exist in time, thus it isn't that God is very, very, old, but that time doesn't really apply to God.

    He existed before time and exists outside of time. In fact, time is part of what He created. We make a mistake when we think God is a "thing" like created things.

    Everything about God is greater than our human language can graspe. For example,

    *Omnipotence doesn't just mean God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in existence is His power. There is no power other than His.

    *Omniscience doesn't just mean God knows everything that has been and will be, but that God also knows everything that could have been, but didn't happen. He knows all actualities, but knows all possibilities too.

    *Omnipresent doesn't just mean God is everywhere, but that everywhere is in God. Every spacetime loci in existence exists inside of Him! 

    Asking who "created" God is confusing the characteristics of a created thing, (having a beginning, thus being contingent on something else) with that of an uncreated thing, (being necessary and in contingent on anything)

    One of the reasons the bible has been so highly esteemed throughout history is because it contains complex, intelligent, and astute ideas like these.
    So angels and devils can both be considered a thing like energy and matter?
    This was a great question. It shows you gave consideration to my answer. But also, in all my years debating this point, no one ever asked this question!

    Allow me to add that Angels and demons are the same beings, demons just reject God. Similar to theists and atheists.

    Note that energy and matter are the same too. Just in different states.

    It is interesting to do logical exercises with the person of God and see how internally logically consistent the Christian concept of God is, and how much it matches what we see in reality.

    Anyway. That was a good question.
  • ethang5 said:
    @ZeusAres42

    >You forgot indefinable as well as also having Unfalsifiability. (also known as: untestability).

    A god who was testable by created men would not be the God of the bible.
    There is no way of addressing this point as there is no way of knowing if a Deity did create humans and/or if that Deity is the same God of the Bible. You can of course believe in a Deity and also believe that Deity is the same God of the Bible, or choose not to believe; either way is fine. Nonetheless, this still doesn't change that the idea of God is an unfalsifiable one; it is an idea that has been orchestrated (either intentionally or unintentionally) so that it cannot be falsified. In fact, your statement above actually epitomizes the unfalsifiability of the idea of God even more. Please note however, that unfalsifiable is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it being used to disprove the existence of God here as that would be contradictory to the term unfalsifiable.

    The concept of Unfalsifiability doesn't make any sense when applied to a singularity.

    Hmm. Did you perhaps mean something other than Unfalsifiable and/or singularity here? Unfalsifiable as already pointed out means that something cannot be proved either right or wrong, existent or non-existent, etc. Feel free to defer to other authorities sources if you're doubting me and/or having trouble understanding what these terms mean. You might also be interested to note that a quote from Vaulk in his response was also in par with that of unfalsifiablity "The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise." - Vaulk. You might also find this helpful: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability


    God just IS. And our puny languages and thoughts can never define or comprehend Him. That is how it should be, if God is who and how He says He is.   

    I myself am open more to the possibility of a Deistic Deity than that of a Theistic one and therefore I have an alternative version of you're saying here and that is the following:

    If there is a Deity that set everything in motion it would not be anything like that which is depicted by any human being. There is a possibility that a Deity did put everything into motion but this kind of Deity of would be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, define, or describe it.

    What I have noticed with several Atheists and Theists alike is that they often end up talking about a Deity in anthropomorphic terms. The trouble is when one starts to anthropomorphize God they're actually no longer talking about a Deity any more; in fact, they're simply talking about what could be classed as an immortal human being with super powers; as an adult this is something I find extremely hard to accept.



    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • @TiaKruschke

    I'm not religious, but I don't think it's fair, or accurate, or even genuine to argue any religion was created to "control people with fear". Judaism was created as a revolutionary belief system to help the Jews create a cultural identity, which in turn would hopefully help them be freed from slavery and foreign oppression. "Controlling people" was not the purpose.        
    ZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited October 3
    Using Occam's razor we can conclude that humans created gods and the corresponding literature... 
    I don't think you quite understand what Occams razor is, because you certainly cannot "conclude" anything by invoking Occams razor. Occams razor pretty much just means that claims without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Nothing can be concluded by it though. 
  • ethang5ethang5 171 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    You and I agree much more than you seem to think we do.

    >There is no way of addressing this point as there is no way of knowing if a Deity did create humans and/or if that Deity is the same God of the Bible.

    True. One of the most difficult things to accept as a intelligent curious person is that some things will never be known.

    >You can of course believe in a Deity and also believe that Deity is the same God of the Bible, or choose not to believe; either way is fine. Nonetheless, this still doesn't change that the idea of God is an unfalsifiable one;

    This point doesn't advance your argument or hinder mine. For example, the idea that you see the same color red as I do is also unfalsifiable. So what? Your problem may be in what you think unfalsifiability means to the idea of God.

    >...it is an idea that has been orchestrated (either intentionally or unintentionally) so that it cannot be falsified.

    Or it could just be the truth, and the truth is sometimes unfalsifiable.

    >In fact, your statement above actually epitomizes the unfalsifiability of the idea of God even more. Please note however, that unfalsifiable is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it being used to disprove the existence of God here as that would be contradictory to the term unfalsifiable.

    Then one wonders for what reason you're advancing it. Surely you have a reason beyond simply saying so?

    The concept of Unfalsifiability doesn't make any sense when applied to a singularity.

    >Hmm. Did you perhaps mean something other than Unfalsifiable and/or singularity here?

    No. I meant exactly what I said. Do you believe that the concept of Unfalsifiability can be applied to a singularity? How so?

    >Unfalsifiable as already pointed out means that something cannot be proved either right or wrong, existent or non-existent, etc.

    - By men on their own. But if God, on His own initiative, confirmed His existence, then an unfalsifiable idea can be proven.

    >Feel free to defer to other authorities sources if you're doubting me and/or having trouble understanding what these terms mean.

    Lol. OK.

    >You might also be interested to note that a quote from Vaulk in his response was also in par with that of unfalsifiablity "The question cannot be answered because the question itself assumes an incorrect (And irrelevant) premise." - Vaulk.

    That is not talking about Unfalsifiability at all. Vaulk is noting the incorrectness of the question, not the Unfalsifiability of the idea.

    >You might also find this helpful: I myself am open more to the possibility of a Deistic Deity than that of a Theistic one and therefore I have an alternative version of you're saying here and that is the following:

    >If there is a Deity that set everything in motion it would not be anything like that which is depicted by any human being.

    I agree. And this is exactly what Christians believe, and what the bible sets out. But unlike me, you have no logically consistent reason for this belief other than you simply like it.

    >There is a possibility that a Deity did put everything into motion but this kind of Deity of would be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, define, or describe it. 

    Again, this is exactly what Christianity teaches. Though again, your reason for believing it is simply because it seem correct to you. You can believe a true thing for a false reason.

    >What I have noticed with several Atheists and Theists alike is that they often end up talking about a Deity in anthropomorphic terms.

    This is generally hard to avoid, but rarely does it corrupt the intention of the theist or the atheist. It just helps both parties to better understand the esoteric concept of God.

    >The trouble is when one starts to anthropomorphize God they're actually no longer talking about a Deity any more; in fact, they're simply talking about what could be classed as an immortal human being with super powers; as an adult this is something I find extremely hard to accept.

    You should be aware that your perception that they are no longer talking about a deity is only that,  -your perception. It is not necessarily correct.

    Anthropomorphizing God can be incorrectly done sure, but it is also often just a linguistic tool. For example, we know God has no gender, but we refer to God as "Him".

    I was once a deist, but I soon saw that nothing in Christianity contradicted deism, and in fact Christianity explained many of the conundrums presented by deism.

    I just had to get past the "pop christian" beliefs of my culture that everyone thought were correct.

    Good post.
  • piloteer said:
    Using Occam's razor we can conclude that humans created gods and the corresponding literature... 
    I don't think you quite understand what Occams razor is, because you certainly cannot "conclude" anything by invoking Occams razor. Occams razor pretty much just means that claims without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Nothing can be concluded by it though. 
    You're confusing Hitchen's razor with Occam's, but then they are related... Occam's states :"Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." 

    Simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable. Or stated otherwise, the simplest solution is most likely the right one.

    True though that we cannot "conclude", but we can discard... 
    piloteerZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @TiaKruschke, man created God. It's just a fictional character in a fairy tale.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • ethang5 said:
    @ZeusAres42

    >You can of course believe in a Deity and also believe that Deity is the same God of the Bible, or choose not to believe; either way is fine. Nonetheless, this still doesn't change that the idea of God is an unfalsifiable one;

    This point doesn't advance your argument or hinder mine. For example, the idea that you see the same color red as I do is also unfalsifiable. So what? Your problem may be in what you think unfalsifiability means to the idea of God.
    Two points here which are as follows:
    1. I am not trying to hinder your argument/s; that's not how I view rational discourse. Although I may not be advancing any position here I am not putting myself at a disadvantage; it's merely neutral in this instance.
    2. It appears that we will not agree on the definition of what unfalsifiable means. So, instead of arguing about the definitions of what certain terms mean where progress will not be made on either side how about we just focus on the main message that my previous post was advocating which was the fact that the idea of God or any ideas about its creation or creationlessness cannot be proven true or false, correct or incorrect, factual or not-factual, has no degree of any evidential support etc; surely, we can both agree on this as do several other individuals do including Theists, Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc?

    >There is a possibility that a Deity did put everything into motion but this kind of Deity of would be beyond the ability of humans to comprehend, define, or describe it. 

    Again, this is exactly what Christianity teaches. Though again, your reason for believing it is simply because it seem correct to you. You can believe a true thing for a false reason.
    1. I am not entirely sure you can put Theism on the same par as Deism; to do so seems logically inconsistent with one another. You cannot have both here without one contradicting the other; you either believe in a Theistic God or a Deistic Deity.
    2. I don't believe in a Deistic Deity; I am merely open to the possibility of Deistic deity. And yes, I have no logical bases for liking this idea just as I also have no logical bases for believing chocolate cake is delicious. What's more, I cannot see it's possible to have any logically consistent reason for believing in the existence of something where no degree of any evidential support can be found about either about its existence or lack thereof. You can of course have faith though; this is not necessarily a bad thing as for some people it serves them very well; others not so much.

    >What I have noticed with several Atheists and Theists alike is that they often end up talking about a Deity in anthropomorphic terms.

    This is generally hard to avoid, but rarely does it corrupt the intention of the theist or the atheist. It just helps both parties to better understand the esoteric concept of God.

    1. Of course, this doesn't corrupt what one intends to convey in a debate; that is correct.
    2. People have their own individual concepts of what or who God is. If someone sees God in anthropomorphic terms then they will more likely talk and/or understand God in anthropomorphic ways.

    You should be aware that your perception that they are no longer talking about a deity is only that,  -your perception. It is not necessarily correct.
    This is true but could be said about everything and is applicable to all human beings on the planet, including yourself.

    Anthropomorphizing God can be incorrectly done sure, but it is also often just a linguistic tool. For example, we know God has no gender, but we refer to God as "Him".
    From my experience this is more commonly done by the Theist. However, I do understand that using gender type is done mainly reasons of simplicity.

    I was once a deist, but I soon saw that nothing in Christianity contradicted deism, and in fact Christianity explained many of the conundrums presented by deism.

    Interesting. I used to have more theistic views before being more open to the idea of a Deism.

    I just had to get past the "pop christian" beliefs of my culture that everyone thought were correct.
    I think this bit here is a discussion for another day.

    Good post.
    Thank you. You too.

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch