Does God exist? Or, is there a God?

"We are having NO TROUBLE AT ALL getting our points across." I doubt it, because you continue to ask me the same questions, all of which I'm answering consistently. The holes you think you're poking are attacking a position I do not hold.

"You demand a different standard from your victims than you are willing to submit yourself to." Negative. I've always stated that practical knowledge requires empirical observation, or itself is at least a testable hypothesis. Key words: practical and testable. What claim have I made that does not follow this?

"You have been asked to prove that god(s) don't exist." I would require better context than you or OP have provided as to what a god is. All I can say at this point is I don't believe the claim that OP's god exists because evidence for OP's god is lacking, severely. But, generally speaking, I can't prove gods don't exist. I've said this already. I also do not claim 'no gods exist'.

"It's pretty sad to see someone who claims to be all about proof, evidence, fact, waffling because you got caught in the trap you try to catch others in." Negative. The trap is in your mind, not in reality. Here's waffling :"A person of faith KNOWS that belief is based on things that cannot be proven, which makes your statement a lie." Knowing that faith is belief sans-proof, and knowing that the belief based on faith is true are two different claims entirely, yet you claim they are one in the same, and use this to attack my position. That straw-man with my face on it is taking quite a beating.

side not: I'm not looking to trap anyone. Perhaps there's a perspective I'm missing, or some scientific article I've overlooked. That's why I'm really here in this forum.

"BUT you have stated over and over again how it makes you happy to correct people who believe differently." Are you saying I shouldn't be happy to? I correct people who believe incorrectly. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. If someone holds a belief that is contrary to reality, they are wrong (you've yet to indicate this is illogical of me, or its premise to be incorrect). If someone claims something is true, with no good reason to justify it, then there's no point in assuming truth to the claim. I, as a personal preference, dismiss claims for which there is lacking evidence. Of course there's some subjectivity in the process. We're all human. But some standards for knowledge are more practical than others. That's how science works, and that's what faith defies (to its discredit).

How does this apply to gods? Strictly speaking, it doesn't have to (OP's god as an example). But, when people believe in a god because they think the earth is 6,000 years old, they're wrong (as an example. Not ascribing this to anyone).

"Why are you continuing to be irrelevant?" You seem entertained, and this is a decent distraction from my day job. If you don't like it, stop typing.

If not, see ya later, SGM (Join to see)

P.S. please tag me. I can't see your responses when you don't. "@" immediately followed by my name.

SPC (Join to see) First, I don't know why you find it so necessary to lie, if you are not an atheist-evangelist. Lie? I have not asked you any questions, except rhetorical ones which show that you use your talk about evidence and logic to hide your motivation to dump on anyone who does believe. Do you think I haven't noticed your writings in other posts?

And yes, I really do understand your points. For example, "my position is that anything that can't be proven is likely irrelevant." But you can't prove that there is no god(s), so by your own definition, you and your arguments are irrelevant.

Even above, you waffle, redefine, try to move every discussion to your prepared position. "Practical knowledge"? I never claimed anything I believe had any practical value. That's just one of the many reasons I don't try to convert people. Why can't you live and let live? Just how does it harm you for anyone to believe something you don't?

" I would require better context than you or OP have provided as to what a god is." More waffling. First new ground rule. DO NOT mention the OP again. I didn't agree with what he said and I posted something against it. So it's fallacious to attempt to link my points and his together, plus I have read nothing of his defense of his position, if there is any. Again (and I don't understand why you can't get this) I don't give a damn what people believe. The only thing I care about, and the reason I posted, was because I do believe that people who attempt to convert others are annoying, obnoxious, self-centered, self-important, meddling busybodies.

So you pick any definition you want and prove there is no god(s). And if you cannot come up with some kind of definition, or cannot come up with a proof, then at least be honest enough to admit it, rather than playing games with words so you never have to do what you demand you opponents do.

Belief is based on things that cannot be proven is my statement. It doesn't have your face on it. I'm fully agreeable that a belief cannot be proven or disproven. I haven't asked you to prove or disprove what I believe, and I couldn't care less what you think about that. But what you said is that anything that can't be proven is irrelevant. Prove it. That's your statement. If you can't submit your statements to the same scrutiny that you seek to apply to everyone else's, the you are a two-faced hypocrite.

Again, I've read some fo your posts on other threads. Yes, you take a great deal of joy in playing your logic games, and yet you wiggle and waffle when anyone does it to you. So by your statement, I should be getting plenty of joy in pointing out that you wont do what you expect others to do, one of the many definitions of hypocrisy. And yes, there is something wrong with "correcting" people on something you cannot prove. You cannot prove that what I believe is incorrect. All you can do is prove that what I believe doesn't satisfy you. So unless you can prove you are god, you are nothing but a self-important know-it-all with delusions of grandeur.

"If someone holds a belief that is contrary to reality, they are wrong (you've yet to indicate this is illogical of me, or its premise to be incorrect)." No, the premise is fine. Now PROVE that there is no god(s), or admit that you cannot, and further that in your statement above, "contrary to reality" really means "something you don't believe."

"If someone claims something is true, with no good reason to justify it, then there's no point in assuming truth to the claim." Ok, same as before. You have claimed that anything that can't be proven is irrelevant. Prove it. There's NO REASON to accept what you think is the final definition of what is real. What makes gravity work? We accept it, we trust in it, but not even the smartest people in the world can prove it. There are theories about gravitons, but no one has detected one. They are postulated to make the math work.

Once again, the point you refuse to acknowledge. Just because you can't prove something doesn't make it wrong ... or right. You yourself brought up the Earth being round in spite of what people believed. Well PERHAPS, in spite of what you believe, god is relevant and you aren't.

"I, as a personal preference, dismiss claims for which there is lacking evidence. Of course there's some subjectivity in the process." Do you read what you write before it gets to your fingers? I mean really, are you admitting that your preference is subjective? How then do you justify acting on your subjective belief to argue with what anyone else believes?

6000 years and belief in god ... OK, so again, you want to lump a statement you are prepared to argue about, with a statement, you cannot do anything more than say is a subject preference of yours. Don't you see how logically bankrupt that is? Is it possible that anyone (you for example) might be right on one subject and wrong on another? I remember the Scopes Monkey Trial, not that I was there, but then I am older than you. Just because the 7 day story may not have been literal truth, doesn't invalidate another statement.

Let's go another place. I personally have had close encounter of the second kind. (Evidence of a UFO landing, in case you don't know what that is.) So what is the truth? Are there UFOs? Well, that's the question, isn't it? Assuming I'm not lying, what I claim is that I saw evidence of a UFO landing that can't be explained by anything else. But if I make a statement about believing in UFOs, does that means UFOs exist? No, at least not until there is actual contact.

God is no different. Whether you or I believe or not does not affect his existence, any more than what I saw means or doesn't mean there are UFOs, and no more than believing the Earth was flat made it true. Until such proof exists, it's a waste of time to argue about it.

But you've had your way long enough and I haven't cared at all to argue about whether god(s) exist or not. If you aren't the self-important blowhard I believe you are, then let's get back to my point on this thread, which you hijacked because you like to argue. People who try to convert others are obnoxious blowhards.

Wall of text. I'm bored. You win. (sorry, didn't even read it. I think this has gone on long enough.)

SGM (Join to see)

SPC (Join to see) Do you think you could read a short and final response? First, I don't think you think I "won", even though I didn't care about winning. Second, I wonder if any of your victims said the same thing, "you win?" Do you REALLY suppose you won? Maybe you'll remember this the next time you want to "correct" someone with your opinion. If it was so much fun to correct people, you should continue to "correct" me. But it's not; it's about winning.

I regard your answer as confirmation of my statement that people who seek to convert others are obnoxious blowhards. Thanks for agreeing with me.

What?

No one knows what Jesus, actually did, but, you do know through stories told from his disciples how he treated the people around him. He was around the poor, the sick, the starving, he certainly did not shun them because they were needy. So, no, I'm not saying I know what he did, I am saying know one knows what he truly did. You have stories written in Ancient Aramaic, loosely translated into Latin, and then into English, and you, don't think there will be some type of mis-interpretation? It's only common sense that there would be.

if you are referring to the Apocrypha, then yes, you are correct SGT Sullivan, but if you look at the rest of the biblical text there is extraordinary textual and historical evidence supporting its accuracy, to say nothing of significant archaeological finds that testify to its authenticity.

Not saying I reject the source, or the existence of the historical documentation. Just, man's translation.

1LT L S That's exactly the point, my translation of this verse, is that man was given Freewill to explore everything under the heavens. But according to some churches Dogma, I am wrong because I am questioning their translation of the same text. Again, it's the bible I have contention with, it's Dogma. It's mans translations of the bible. It's our God given right to question and explore, and determine the why's and wherefores of our environment. And when we blindly accept Dogma, over what science tells us, instead of accepting that maybe God made it this way, that's where we have the problems. When people claim, Dinosaurs didn't exist, or The sun revolves around the Earth, or Pigs are unclean, so don't eat pork or you will not get your 72 Virgins, etc... because your religious leader says God says so. That's where I have the problem.

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson

That's your own opinion, as I've stated, everyone is entitled to their own. No one owes you or any other person proof; if you don't believe, that's your prerogative.

Some people believe because they have personal reasons to believe he exists, others do not because they do not believe he exists.

It's that simple

That is YOUR opinion, and yes WE believe that, but that will not be the substantial evidence non believers will believe.

I did not say I think he exists, nor did I say he may exist, I said in my personal belief he does exist, so where is this doubt you're referring to?

Shake you head all you want