Quote from: the joint on August 26, 2015, 01:12:05 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on August 25, 2015, 05:30:47 PM

Quote from: the joint on August 25, 2015, 04:06:56 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on August 25, 2015, 02:56:07 PM

Quote from: 1aguar on August 25, 2015, 07:07:13 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on August 25, 2015, 06:03:59 AM

No, I don't believe in God or souls.

OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page. Wink

I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire

Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god. It's a false analogy. Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman.

The simplest reason is this:
- Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified.
- Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified. But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified.

In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification.

But I see them as the same. To me, the Spider-Man series of books and the God series of books are just make believe stories to entertain their intended audiences. Spider-Man appeals to and was written for a contemporary audience. The God stories are a ragtag collection of different writings appealing to Neanderthal cave dwellers. I'm not going to base my life on either one.

The Itsy Bitsy Spider is also a make believe story about a spider's journey up a water spout, made to entertain its intended audience, but spiders actually exist. This criteria is not enough to exclude the possibility of its existence. Furthermore, my post illustrates a distinction in the requirements for verification/falsification of God versus a tangible, empirical object. The only way you can possibly denounce God's existence is on a purely logical basis, either by demonstrating God is unnecessary (disproving the inverse claim that God is necessary), or by demonstrating God is impossible (good luck with that one). God cannot be verified nor disproved on an empirical basis (i.e. neither by physical evidence or a lack thereof).

Well, I DO believe God is necessary so I can't argue that one. The moral character of the average person is too weak to keep people in line without God. They need an imaginary force looking over their shoulder to make them behave. Police forces are sorely inadequate for stopping crime. Even the most ancient civilizations invented a system of gods to keep people in line.

I never said God was impossible. That requires you to define what "God" is first. To some people God is a force that controls everything and they are a part of that force like a cell in a brain. Taoism is pretty cool in that is doesn't rely on one godlike figurehead. In Taoism we are all God collectively.

When I talk about God I'm mainly talking about my culture. I don't believe that God was some unemployed carpenter turned evangelist that wants you to behave or he will shove hot pokers up your ass in hell. If that's the case then maybe Jim Jones really was God. Christianity is so unbelievable, has killed so many people throughout history and continues to create so many monsters that I believe their God is complete nonsense. The Christian God and religion creates the Josh Duggers of the world that preach hatred toward homosexuals while molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife.