Do you believe in God?

[huskeR32]

...
Already been here and done this.
Its acceptable as evidence in practically every judicial system the world over.
Sorry, if that doesn't fit your concept of evidence.

I thought we had moved on from this crap, but apparently not. Which reminds me of a question I asked of you weeks ago that went unanswered:

There isn't one person in this thread that's agreeing with you about personal testimony being evidence. Applying your own standards of what constitutes evidence, the fact that we all agree with each other would "prove" that you're wrong. Therefore, you should now abandon your position on this matter, and adopt our view, yes?

Of course, you're not really going to suddenly change your mind on this. Ask yourself why.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

There is a God in a position of power over this world. I feel that He has spoken to me and told me that He is there.

Also, there are too many chances working out perfectly for me to feel differently. (Have you ever dealt with statistics? Have you ever tried to study anatomy and physiology? How could everything fit together so perfectly?)

 

[Danoff]

There is a God in a position of power over this world. I feel that He has spoken to me and told me that He is there.

Burning bush?

Also, there are too many chances working out perfectly for me to feel differently. (Have you ever dealt with statistics? Have you ever tried to study anatomy and physiology? How could everything fit together so perfectly?)

This has been covered many many times. Statistics and biology completely support the lack of direct creation.

 

[Famine]

Have you ever dealt with statistics?

Yes.

Have you ever tried to study anatomy and physiology?

Yes.

How could everything fit together so perfectly?

It doesn't.

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't.

👍

 

[SuperCobraJet]

SuperCobraJet - As you didn't notice what I said the last time, whether deliberately or not, I will repeat myself: You are confusing the definition of belief with probability. It is highly improbable that the floor will not support me, you or anyone else. This is not based on belief, but on knowledge accrued over time. If I wanted to, I could mathematically prove that the floor would (or would not) support me, but I don't need to as experience has told me the odds of it supporting me are so overwhelmingly in my favour that it is basically a certainty.

I'm not confusing anything.
You, as well as others here, keep wanting to skip over, a key element of reality.
Probabilities and likelyhood, are existing calculated factors and thats all they are.
They take no action, or do anything, other than provide influence, if entertained by an individual.
And as you say, they can be anywhere on a scale from possible to practical certainty.
Once an individual places confidence or trust in them, they have engaged belief.
Once an individual takes action on their trust or confidence in them, they have displayed proof of their belief.
Even if you skipped the evaluation stage, and assumed, due to repeated reinforcement of positive outcome,
that is precisely and "fact of reality", what has taken place.


Check out both #2s.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t

be·lief
/bɪˈlif/ Show IPA
noun
/bɪˈlif/ believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

be·lief
/bɪh-leef/ Show IPA
noun


1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


World English Dictionary
belief (bɪˈliːf)
— n
1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source

And so goes my opinion on a deity; it is highly improbable that a God exists, the odds are so long that I personally choose to dismiss them, in the same way that I accept the floor will support me, or I'd dismiss the odds of playing for England at the World Cup next summer. I could be wrong, but it is so improbable that I personally have come to the decision that there is no God. Some people choose to have the faith that, despite these odds, he does exist..

Why do you think GOD's existence is improbable?

Belief does not need to be a part of everyday life.

You are using it, practically all the time.
You just don't recognize it as belief.

 

[BobK]

...and the broken record continues to spin anyway...

 

[Famine]

It's funny 'cos you quoted it but still ignored it:

Check out both #2s.

2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief

And you didn't quote, but still ignored:

You are using the colloquial definition of "believe". As in "I believe I'll have a sandwich". You are not using the technical definition of "believe" as in "I believe in God". I explained that thoroughly earlier.

 

[huskeR32]

Check out both #2s.

be·lief

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Did you check out #2? You just pointed us all directly towards the bit that most contradicts your stance...

Edit: tree'd by Famine

 

[Touring Mars]

@SuperCobraJet - although I do not accept your point about belief being 'universal', it is a moot point anyway.

As many people have attempted to explain already, in a variety of different ways, what one believes does not change the objective truth - in other words, one's personal beliefs don't make any difference to the real world, and that is as clear and demonstrable a fact of reality as you can get.

Your preoccupation with arguing that belief is unavoidable, universal and that everybody does it all the time is completely and utterly irrelevant when discussing how one might establish what is objectively true. As homeforsummer said, it doesn't matter whether you believe a floor will support your weight - whether it does or not depends on factors completely outwith the belief/mind of the person considering it. That is what objectivity means - and it matters not whether any individual person is capable of practicing it - objective reality is, by definition, that which can be verified and measured by independent observers - that the result is not dependent on the influence of the observer.

It doesn't matter if you call the acceptance of established facts due to overwhelming supporting evidence 'belief' - once again, you're just playing with words while missing the actual significance - that is, what is objectively verifiable and what is not. It would appear that you cannot (or choose not to) distinguish between what someone might be convinced is true, and what can be demonstrated to be true in spite of such conviction...

 

[Ingram]

Even if you skipped the evaluation stage, and assumed, due to repeated reinforcement of positive outcome,
that is precisely and "fact of reality", what has taken place.

Please don't tell me how to do science. Your track record in this area is, at best, a bit patchy. Also, regarding the bold text - I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say, I tried reading it out loud back to myself and now my brain hurts.

Why do you think GOD's existence is improbable?

Because despite all of the scientific research conducted by many of the most intelligent people in the world, the strongest case for the existance of a god is based on blind faith and ancient eyewitness accounts.

I think a more relevant question that I put to you would be 'Why do you think God's existance is probable?'

You are using it, practically all the time.
You just don't recognize it as belief.

I don't believe you. Wait, hang on...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's why I rely on things actually posted in the thread.

Do you accept that people can live without belief? Yes, or no.

Tell me why you are repeatedly asking me to answer something, I've already answered several times?

It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that it's not acceptable as evidence in any judicial system except a kangaroo court (you failed to answer this) and that courts aren't science (you failed to answer this too).

So, personal testimony is not evidence in your jurisdictional court system?
I'd be willing to bet that it is.

I answered the Science question several times a few pages back.

You ignored the facts on that, just like on the personal testimony evidence.

Your evidence always amounts to "because I say so". No court on the planet would take that evidence.Again, it's only what you've posted. As it happens, I also don't like it. Ignorance through stupidity is fine. Ignorance through deliberate acts to pervert knowledge... I'm not a big fan of.

Reality, has no bearing on "because I say so".
I am claiming "facts of reality".
And most, are certainly not unknown, or are of common knowledge.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-429#post-9005800.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/do-you-believe-in-god.111312/page-429#post-9009169

Knowing that something might not happen is pretty much the opposite of believing it will happen.

The actions you take, show what you believe.
Lets go a little further.
Actually, there is no such thing as unbelief.
You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.
There is no alternative.
It exists, or does not exist.
It is probable, or improbable, so on and so forth.
You may decide to switch sides at some point.
But it is impossible to unbelieve anything without applying belief to the alternative.
It is possible while under evaluation and contemplation, not to have a belief on something as of yet.
But no affirmative actions will be taken on it, until you decide one.
Beliefs can be tentative as well.
Of incomplete assurance or confidence, but acted upon in spite of.

No, I'm with Famine. Your answers to this question haven't exactly been clear.

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you when we're not even clear exactly what your position is. Do us all a favour, and repeat the answer you think you gave previously, because we obviously didn't understand it then.

Do you accept that people can live without belief? Yes or no.

OK, here it is again.
Super sized this time.

I accept, or by definition, tolerate your view.
However, since it is rationally untenable, I do not agree with your view.

Just so there is no misunderstanding.
That is a qualified yes.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Hardly.
If I might draw your attention to #4.


World English Dictionary
accept (əkˈsɛpt)
— vb (sometimes foll by of )
1. to take or receive (something offered)
2. to give an affirmative reply to: to accept an invitation
3. to take on the responsibilities, duties, etc, of: he accepted office
4. to tolerate or accommodate oneself to
5. to consider as true or believe in (a philosophy, theory, etc): I cannot accept your argument
6. ( may take a clause as object ) to be willing to grant or believe: you must accept that he lied
7. to receive with approval or admit, as into a community, group, etc
8. commerce to agree to pay (a bill, draft, shipping document, etc), esp by signing
9. to receive as adequate, satisfactory, or valid
10. to receive, take, or hold (something applied, inserted, etc)
11. archaic to take or receive an offer, invitation, etc
[C14: from Latin acceptāre, from ad- to + capere to take]
ac'cepter

If you were using accept in the correct context SCJ, you would be using #5. Using #4 makes no sense, you cannot tolerate a claim, you can tolerate someone's choices or opinions, but we're not giving our opinion, we are making a claim (and also backing it up, but that's irrelevant to my point). So when you say you accept our claim, it means you agree with us.

 

[Azuremen]

Tell me why you are repeatedly asking me to answer something, I've already answered several times?

Because you haven't answered the question. Which is what everyone besides yourself has been telling you.

So, personal testimony is not evidence in your jurisdictional court system?
I'd be willing to bet that it is.

We've gone over this, legal evidence and scientific evidence are different. In addition, personal testimony is basically the least valued form of legal evidence.

I answered the Science question several times a few pages back.

Nope

Reality, has no bearing on "because I say so".
I am claiming "facts of reality".
And most, are certainly not unknown, or are of common knowledge.

What does this even mean, facts of reality? Also, learn how to use commas - you don't need any in this quoted bit.

The actions you take, show what you believe.

Lets go a little further.
Actually, there is no such thing as unbelief.
You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.
There is no alternative.
It exists, or does not exist.
It is probable, or improbable, so on and so forth.
You may decide to switch sides at some point.
But it is impossible to unbelieve anything without applying belief to the alternative.
It is possible while under evaluation and contemplation, not to have a belief on something as of yet.
But no affirmative actions will be taken on it, until you decide one.
Beliefs can be tentative as well.
Of incomplete assurance or confidence, but acted upon in spite of.

You've apparently never heard of nihilism. And are now making up words to suit your absurd argument.

I accept, or by definition, tolerate your view.
However, since it is rationally untenable, I do not agree with your view.

Just so there is no misunderstanding.
That is a qualified yes.

How the hell is his view untenable? God good you need to stop using all these big words because, and I'll give it the super size treatment -

you don't understand the meaning of the majority of these large words you keep using.

STAHP IT.

It's embarrassing.

 

[jtv90069]

So we breathe only because we believe we can?

 

[Danoff]

The actions you take, show what you believe.
Lets go a little further.
Actually, there is no such thing as unbelief.
You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.
There is no alternative.
It exists, or does not exist.
It is probable, or improbable, so on and so forth.
You may decide to switch sides at some point.
But it is impossible to unbelieve anything without applying belief to the alternative.
It is possible while under evaluation and contemplation, not to have a belief on something as of yet.
But no affirmative actions will be taken on it, until you decide one.
Beliefs can be tentative as well.
Of incomplete assurance or confidence, but acted upon in spite of.

Fascinatingly wrong. I'll explain below:

You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.
...
It is probable, or improbable, so on and so forth.

How exactly do you reconcile these statements? If I expect a probable outcome, but am aware that it may not occur, what would you say my state of belief on the following statement?

"The outcome will occur in the future."

Do I think that is true, or do I think that is false?

If you hand me a revolver that has a bullet in one chamber and a total of 6 chambers, and then you spin it so that I don't know which chamber the bullet is in, I would assign the probability of the next shot being one that fires a bullet as 1 in 6.

Now here's the fun part, what is my state of belief on the following statement:

"The gun will fire on the next shot"

Do I think that it is true or do I think that it is false? You have said that I can't be in between, I must either "believe it is true" or "believe it is false" according to you, and yet I don't believe either. I think it is unlikely to occur but could occur.

Now, you might say that I assign a 1 in 6 chance to it and that I believe that, except that in the back of my mind I know that you might have pulled some slight of hand and either slipped another bullet in or slipped the bullet out without my seeing, and so some small part of my doesn't even believe the 1 in 6. In fact, there is almost nothing that I can say concretely about the gun, or even reality in general.

Also, how can you say this?

Beliefs can be tentative as well.

Only if you use "belief" in the colloquial "I believe I'll have a sandwich" sense. If you use belief in the technical "I believe in God" sense - which is what this thread is about - that's absolutely 100% false. I'm sure that your God would send you straight to hell for having "tentative" believe in Jesus Christ as your savior and trying to pass it as honest religious "belief". For any discussion such as this one, where the meaning of the word matters a great deal, "belief" is absolute. You must know it to be true.

Also, how do you reconcile these statements?

Actually, there is no such thing as unbelief.
You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.
...
It is possible while under evaluation and contemplation, not to have a belief on something as of yet.

This is a direct contradiction. If you do not have a belief on something as of yet, then, by definition, you do not believe it to be true or false. So which is it? (Hint: You only get to pick one in this argument, and one of them is wrong)

Also, how do you reconcile this?

It is possible while under evaluation and contemplation, not to have a belief on something as of yet.
But no affirmative actions will be taken on it, until you decide one.
...
Beliefs can be tentative as well.
Of incomplete assurance or confidence, but acted upon in spite of.

So you can't take any actions until you fully believe, unless you act in spite of incomplete assurance.... which is the exact opposite of the previous statement.

 

[huskeR32]

*snip

Step 1: Quote a dictionary about a word you've been misusing
Step 2: Be completely oblivious to the fact that said dictionary definition directly contradicts your own usage of the word
Step 3: See two people show you, quite clearly, where that contradiction occurs
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Never respond to those posts, but instead move on and barf some more self-contradictory nonsense
Step 6: Presumably repeat the cycle?

What I really wish I understood is what happens in your brain at step four. Clearly you are incapable of ever acknowledging in here that you're wrong, but I hope that you at least take a moment to admit it to yourself, and adjust your views accordingly.

 

[Jaywalker]

It doesn't.

Actually, it does. It's the human race that screws it all up.

 

[homeforsummer]

Actually, it does. It's the human race that screws it all up.

No, it doesn't. Very little in the universe fits perfectly together. Virtually every process in the universe is subject to failing spectacularly at any moment. We just get to witness the smallest slice of it so it all appears perfect.

And when we're specifically talking anatomy and physiology, as the poster Famine responded to did, it doesn't take long at all to find things that are wrong. The appendix, for example - prone to life-threatening swelling and bursting. The fact we breathe through and shovel food down the same narrow passage, allowing people to choke now and then. The fact we have too many teeth for our jaws and they need correction to keep them straight. There are plenty more examples and they certainly aren't ones of things fitting together perfectly.

It's the subject of the creation thread really but put it this way - if God created us we're more at the knock-off Chinese watch end of the market than we are the Patek Philippe...

 

[Jaywalker]

No, it doesn't. Very little in the universe fits perfectly together. Virtually every process in the universe is subject to failing spectacularly at any moment. We just get to witness the smallest slice of it so it all appears perfect.

And when we're specifically talking anatomy and physiology, as the poster Famine responded to did, it doesn't take long at all to find things that are wrong. The appendix, for example - prone to life-threatening swelling and bursting. The fact we breathe through and shovel food down the same narrow passage, allowing people to choke now and then. The fact we have too many teeth for our jaws and they need correction to keep them straight. There are plenty more examples and they certainly aren't ones of things fitting together perfectly.

It's the subject of the creation thread really but put it this way - if God created us we're more at the knock-off Chinese watch end of the market than we are the Patek Philippe...

If you look at how nature works & fits together without mankinds intervention, it does work perfectly.

 

[Azuremen]

If you look at how nature works & fits together without mankinds intervention, it does work perfectly.

Umm, what? Please find a SOURCE, any source, that backs this insane claim up. So many things that only work sort of kind of just well enough for their environment, not to mention the food chain is built on creatures that don't quite work perfectly.

 

[Jaywalker]

Umm, what? Please find a SOURCE, any source, that backs this insane claim up. So many things that only work sort of kind of just well enough for their environment, not to mention the food chain is built on creatures that don't quite work perfectly.

And that's exactly how it's meant to be...

 

[Azuremen]

And that's exactly how it's meant to be...

So basically, by being imperfect, things are perfect?

That circular logic, too strong.

Now find some damn sources, please. Or just get out since you seem incapable of actually contributing anything remotely meaningful.

 

[Famine]

Actually, it does. It's the human race that screws it all up.

Not even close - and there's 4 billion years of evolutionary dead ends that wiped themselves out without any help from humanity (or even meeting it).

 

[Scaff]

If you look at how nature works & fits together without mankinds intervention, it does work perfectly.

Which would be why around 98% of the species that have ever existed have become extinct, because it works and fits together so well!

Oh wait.

 

[homeforsummer]

If you look at how nature works & fits together without mankinds intervention, it does work perfectly.

As well as the responses posted above, if you'd noted my examples of the entire universe (you know, the entirety of everything that has, does and ever will exist) and my slightly smaller example of the human body, you'll see that isn't the case.

Nature isn't just elephants and tigers running around harmoniously, it's every living process. And that comes within the sphere of everything else. Regardless of mankind's intervention.

 

[Jaywalker]

So basically, by being imperfect, things are perfect?

That circular logic, too strong.

Now find some damn sources, please. Or just get out since you seem incapable of actually contributing anything remotely meaningful.

Ah yes, the good old personal attack. You don't get to tell me where I can post. If you're incapable of seeing the big picture, that's not my problem.

 

[Touring Mars]

If you look at how nature works & fits together without mankinds intervention, it does work perfectly.

If nature works so perfectly, then why does it require mankind's intervention to remedy the myriad faults that occur spontaneously?? Nature is many things, but it is by no means perfect.

 

[Famine]

Ah yes, the good old personal attack.

Where?

You don't get to tell me where I can post. If you're incapable of seeing the big picture, that's not my problem.

Your problem is posting unsupported information. It adds nothing to the discussion - you only have to look at the last several pages of "what I think is evidence that what I think is true because I say so" to see how that works - so if you're actually interested in the discussion, provide sources for what you're saying. And if you're not interested in the discussion, why are you involving yourself in it?

 

[Jaywalker]

Where?Your problem is posting unsupported information. It adds nothing to the discussion - you only have to look at the last several pages of "what I think is evidence that what I think is true because I say so" to see how that works - so if you're actually interested in the discussion, provide sources for what you're saying. And if you're not interested in the discussion, why are you involving yourself in it?

I'd call "you seem incapable of actually contributing anything remotely meaningful." reasonably personal & hardly complimentary.

I WAS interested in the discussion, but it seems that those that don't subscribe to certain lines of thinking are just going to be wrong anyway. So I'll move on to less heavy pastures... 👍