To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
2get sage combo.
What the hell is "real?"
Don't tell me you still believe in reality.
/// Weather forecast for this thread: 1 strong trollstorm coming right up. ///
I got really into studying religion for a few years and I've come to the conclusion that most of it is bullshit but it's a very nice way to get involved within a community and potentially do some cool rituals (depending on the religion). I wish religion was not as conservative. I wish the Christian churches started using psychedelics for their communion. I bet people would benefit from it more, potentially gain stronger relationships, and discover themselves better. I don't mean full blown doses but something like the equivalent of a small amount of cannabis. I think the founders of the religions (Jesus, Siddhartha, whoever wrote the Vedas, etc.) or schools of thought didn't want it to turn out the way it is currently today (i.e. blowing up innocent civilians).
I think that before the Big Bang the event that preceded it was some sort of Deity that "jump-started" the Universe. I'm not very educated in science due to slacking off all of high school but I'm revamping that and taking science courses at community college (just finishing up biology with a B).
I also think it is best that everyone interpret the "holy texts" as metaphors or symbolism to reality as opposed to literal.
>>1
"God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.)."
You assume something like that God doesn't exist, or rather that he didn't create everything; it would all be evidence of him having created it if he did.
Logically what you've said is roughly:
There is no evidence that God created the universe, therefore God is not real.
As I just said, it's possible the entirety of what we observe is evidence of God.
In any event, what you've said is fallacious. It's an example (perhaps one of the most prominent examples) of the logical fallacy, "argument from ignorance".
And before anything continues, I suggest that the definition of God be established and stated clearly, preferably by the OP.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I think one of the strongest arguments against the popular image of a personal loving god is the existence of evil, particularly senseless suffering.
Arguing over what "senseless" suffering is seems fairly weak to me.
God /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object)
9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
>>7
That would be the "problem of evil," which has been debated for millenia by nearly every religion, except Buddhism and the dualists.
Some popular counterarguments:
I personally think the free will counterargument is the most convincing.
>>7
If absence of proof is not proof of absence, then I could make up any way that the world was created and there would be a possibility. That means that the possibility of God being existent is the exact same as say, a fat opossum underground who controls the world with psychic powers (creative, I know).
This means that God is fighting literally infinite amounts of possibilities, any which could be the truth. The only thing that makes God stand out from everyone else is that he is just the most common idea.
I suppose it's right to say that there is always a possibility, but there are an uncountable amount of possibilities that exist as well.
> If absence of proof is not proof of absence, then I could make up any way that the world was created and there would be a possibility.
You bet.
i don't know why people find that so troublesome.
> Evil exists in order that we have free will, which necessarily includes the freedom to do evil.
This is a total cop-out: A lot of suffering is caused by circumstances beyond the control of any one individual, or even group. If God allows suffering caused by no human, he cannot truly be considered good.
To exemplify, Mount Vesuvius explodes and all the inhabitants of Pompeii are killed. God could have whisked them off to safety, but chose not to. If free will was a concern to him, he could have asked them first if they wanted to die there, or preferred to be moved to safety. He did not.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe in feminist manginas like rich dawkins
>...and use science to back it up if you have to...
When you say science you mean the scientific procedure which I hardly find useful in this situation given that I'd have no controls for an experiment even if I had the right hypothesis.
>God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.)
Technically in science you can never prove anything. If you start by trying to prove something then it is not good science what you're practising there. The scientific method:
-Observation
-Hypothesis
-Experiment
-Conclusion
Is about testing a hypothesis and not trying to prove your ideas.
What I can use instead is logic by which based on syllogisms I can show how the Christian concept of god is fallible and thus, most likely, human invention (I'm not going to write it now, ask if you want me to) keep in mind that there might be another god completely alien to any human concept.
Finally, although not entirely relevant to the topic, keep in mind that religious beliefs and science are not opposite poles. It's like comparing apples to dogs, they are different things.
>Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
TRUE, I'm certain I'll use it.