btw there is no god

[b.k. barunt]

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

So you don't "believe" in witches? Interesting. Do you know what "Wicca" is? You may not believe in what Wiccans believe, but to say that they don't exist is kinda dumb. How about Jehovah Witnesses?


Honibaz

[Snorri1234]

2 + 2 = 4 because the majority of people believe it.

What? no!

[StiffMittens]

I've got a question. Can you find anywhere in the Bible where God contradicts himself? I'll save you some time and give you the answer. It's no and there's a good reason for that.

"thou shalt not kill"

I'm going to need a little more than that there stud.

Okay, in Exodus 20, God enumerates the ten commandments ("Thou shalt not kill" being fourth on the list, I think), but Exodus 32 describes how Moses came down from the mountain and discovered what wickedness the people had been up to, prompting Moses to say:

"Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=32&version=31

So either God has contradicted his commandment, or Moses was a liar and a deceiver.

Ok, mittens, that's a fair statement, and a source of confusion for a lot of people.

The Hebrew word used in the commandment, raw-tsakh, is rarely used in the Bible. It is not the same word used when speaking of killing the sacrificial animals, killing someone in war, or killing someone as capital punishment as a result of proof of guilt. Outside of the commandment, raw-tsakh and its derivatives are pretty much only used for patently criminal killing, for wrong motives. For that reason in many modern translations it is translated "You shall not (commit) murder." Killing someone as the result of a judgment by a judge who "sees in secret" doesn't qualify. Some would say war and capital punishment are still murder, others would not, but it is far from a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) of a contradiction.

Hope that clears things up.

It doesn't really, but for the moment I'll concede that it muddies things up enough so that it isn't a "smoking gun".

But since Gregrios has apparently declined to respond in any reasoned manner to my first assertion that God changes his mind despite stating in more than one place that he doesn't (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=89586&start=120#p2073323) (Gregrios instead made vague claims about me being deceptive and failing to elaborate on how), perhaps you'd care to respond.

[SultanOfSurreal]

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

So you don't "believe" in witches? Interesting. Do you know what "Wicca" is? You may not believe in what Wiccans believe, but to say that they don't exist is kinda dumb. How about Jehovah Witnesses?


Honibaz

that's really disingenuous. there is no such thing as what most people conceive of when they hear "witch," ie, a person who casts genuine magic spells and communes with the devil -- no matter what crackpot wiccans may believe they're actually doing when they have vegan orgies in the forest

[FarangDemon]

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

So you don't "believe" in witches? Interesting. Do you know what "Wicca" is? You may not believe in what Wiccans believe, but to say that they don't exist is kinda dumb. How about Jehovah Witnesses?


Honibaz

that's really disingenuous. there is no such thing as what most people conceive of when they hear "witch," ie, a person who casts genuine magic spells and communes with the devil -- no matter what crackpot wiccans may believe they're actually doing when they have vegan orgies in the forest

I would make fun of Honibaz for his disingenuousness but I'm afraid that his Wiccan friends might cast some sort of spell on me. He must be a Wiccan himself or have many Wiccan friends if in his normal discourse "witch" is used to refer to modern Wiccans and that what most, non-Wiccan people refer to as "witches" he and those members of his unholy communion must refer to as "the medieval concept of witches as villains who are in league with the devil and cast magical spells"

Many generations of ancestors have passed down the advice via oral tradition that I should watch out for witches. I don't know the etymology of the word they originally used, so I just have to be really careful of all witches.

[Woodruff]

In the same manner, one could "prove" that witches exist because of the universal belief in witches during the middle ages.

So you don't "believe" in witches? Interesting. Do you know what "Wicca" is? You may not believe in what Wiccans believe, but to say that they don't exist is kinda dumb. How about Jehovah Witnesses?

that's really disingenuous. there is no such thing as what most people conceive of when they hear "witch," ie, a person who casts genuine magic spells and communes with the devil -- no matter what crackpot wiccans may believe they're actually doing when they have vegan orgies in the forest

I would make fun of Honibaz for his disingenuousness but I'm afraid that his Wiccan friends might cast some sort of spell on me. He must be a Wiccan himself or have many Wiccan friends if in his normal discourse "witch" is used to refer to modern Wiccans

The Wiccans I know do refer to themselves as witches, yes.

[daddy1gringo]

Hope that clears things up.

It doesn't really, but for the moment I'll concede that it muddies things up enough so that it isn't a "smoking gun".

But since Gregrios has apparently declined to respond in any reasoned manner to my first assertion that God changes his mind despite stating in more than one place that he doesn't (http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=89586&start=120#p2073323) ..., perhaps you'd care to respond.

Sure. A little busy right now. give me some time to read over the passages. ( I was going to say "a little tied up right now" but figured someone would accuse me of being into S&M bondage )

[Dancing Mustard]

Now there's a response that I will be genuinely keen to read.

[daddy1gringo]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's not that it's taking this long to know what to say, I'm just really busy these last few days, but it's coming.

[thelastpatriot]

just wanted to make sure we were all clear on this

Reading through your post I came to realize how absolutely wrong you are. There are many religions although you have concentrated on Christianity. Even if science proves beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no God you will still be wrong. There will always be believers. and as long as that stays true there will always be a God.

[Simon Viavant]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

[thelastpatriot]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

It could be possible but that is something you would have to ask God and that is not entirely what I meant.
Lets take religion out of it. By him acknowledging in his mind that people believe there is a god(any god) then his statement is untrue. He himself is acknowledging gods existence by trying to disprove it.

[Woodruff]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

I read a fantasy series once where the gods did indeed require the "belief of the people" (not all-encompassing, but enough of them) or they would literally die off...don't remember what it was though. Hmmm...

[Iliad]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

I read a fantasy series once where the gods did indeed require the "belief of the people" (not all-encompassing, but enough of them) or they would literally die off...don't remember what it was though. Hmmm...

Discworld?

The gods power depends on how much belief they have?

[xelabale]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

I read a fantasy series once where the gods did indeed require the "belief of the people" (not all-encompassing, but enough of them) or they would literally die off...don't remember what it was though. Hmmm...

Discworld?

The gods power depends on how much belief they have?

Yes, Small Gods - Terry Pratchett - interesting philosophy.

[Dancing Mustard]

By him acknowledging in his mind that people believe there is a god(any god) then his statement is untrue.

Pure horsepoop.

Believing in something does not make it something that exists. It makes belief in it exist, but it doesn't actually create the thing itself.

No doubt you'll try to respond with "but I love my mum, simply by doing that I make love real" or something similar, but this will be a flawed analogy. While 'love' (etc) is a mere feeling/state-of-mind, 'God' is allegedly an entity. While one can create an abstract state of mind simply by mentally carrying it out, one can't actually conjour up entites and states of being simply by believing in them (see: there is no spoon). Therefore, the mere existence of a belief of God is something that falls far short of God actually existing, and your quoted premise is completely wrong.

To demonstrate it another way; I believe that the Tooth-Fairy exists and is served by Leprechaun vassals, by doing so I have made this true. There is now officially and irrefutably a Tooth-Fairy and Leprechauns.

Also, the world is flat. I believe that. Therefore the world is flat now, regardless of what other people believe or can physically prove. After all, if belief in a God magically makes him real (regardless of the countervailing beliefs that God is in fact not real), then why wouldn't the same logic apply to everything else, such as flat-worlds.

So there we go. In conclusion: Acknowledging the existence of beliefs does not make those beliefs true. Simple as that.

[thegreekdog]

So God exists... because people believe in him?

I read a fantasy series once where the gods did indeed require the "belief of the people" (not all-encompassing, but enough of them) or they would literally die off...don't remember what it was though. Hmmm...

American Gods by Neil Gaiman?

[SultanOfSurreal]

By him acknowledging in his mind that people believe there is a god(any god) then his statement is untrue.

Pure horsepoop.

Believing in something does not make it something that exists. It makes belief in it exist, but it doesn't actually create the thing itself.

No doubt you'll try to respond with "but I love my mum, simply by doing that I make love real" or something similar, but this will be a flawed analogy. While 'love' (etc) is a mere feeling/state-of-mind, 'God' is allegedly an entity. While one can create an abstract state of mind simply by mentally carrying it out, one can't actually conjour up entites and states of being simply by believing in them (see: there is no spoon). Therefore, the mere existence of a belief of God is something that falls far short of God actually existing, and your quoted premise is completely wrong.

To demonstrate it another way; I don't believe that the Tooth-Fairy exists and is served by Leprechaun vassals, by doing so I have made this true. There is now officially and irrefutably a Tooth-Fairy and Leprechauns.

Also, the world is flat. I believe that. Therefore the world is flat now, regardless of what other people believe or can physically prove. After all, if belief in a God magically makes him real (regardless of the countervailing beliefs that God is in fact not real), then why wouldn't the same logic apply to everything else, such as flat-worlds.

So there we go. In conclusion: Acknowledging the existence of beliefs does not make those beliefs true. Simple as that.

i think this lastpatriot guy must have read the ontological argument at one point, then tried to regurgitate it in that post. of course, he failed miserably. which is really quite impressive actually, since the ontological argument is already hideously simplistic and self-evidently fallacious in the first place

[thelastpatriot]

By him acknowledging in his mind that people believe there is a god(any god) then his statement is untrue.

Pure horsepoop.

Believing in something does not make it something that exists. It makes belief in it exist, but it doesn't actually create the thing itself.

No doubt you'll try to respond with "but I love my mum, simply by doing that I make love real" or something similar, but this will be a flawed analogy. While 'love' (etc) is a mere feeling/state-of-mind, 'God' is allegedly an entity. While one can create an abstract state of mind simply by mentally carrying it out, one can't actually conjour up entites and states of being simply by believing in them (see: there is no spoon). Therefore, the mere existence of a belief of God is something that falls far short of God actually existing, and your quoted premise is completely wrong.

To demonstrate it another way; I don't believe that the Tooth-Fairy exists and is served by Leprechaun vassals, by doing so I have made this true. There is now officially and irrefutably a Tooth-Fairy and Leprechauns.


Also, the world is flat. I believe that. Therefore the world is flat now, regardless of what other people believe or can physically prove. After all, if belief in a God magically makes him real (regardless of the countervailing beliefs that God is in fact not real), then why wouldn't the same logic apply to everything else, such as flat-worlds.

So there we go. In conclusion: Acknowledging the existence of beliefs does not make those beliefs true. Simple as that.

i think this lastpatriot guy must have read the ontological argument at one point, then tried to regurgitate it in that post. of course, he failed miserably. which is really quite impressive actually, since the ontological argument is already hideously simplistic and self-evidently fallacious in the first place

Never read the ontological argument. You are both wrong. As long as there is a belief in something it will exist. My four year old believes there is a monster in his closet. I've showed him over and over that there is not a monster in there. He keeps insisting that he's disappearing or goes through a hidden passage when we look but he is still there. Although I know that there is no monster in my sons closet to him that monster is very real. And as long as that is the case then that monster exist causing me to try to disprove it to my son and him trying to prove it to me.

[thegreekdog]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

[mpjh]

LIke father, like son, so the saying goes, and sultan is the proof.

[thelastpatriot]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

Now let's go for personal attacks, nice. Maybe I should have used global warming for comparison.

[xelabale]

DM has it exactly right. There is no monster in your cupboard. It's not physically there. However, there is belief in the monster. The monster isn't real, but that doesn't mean the belief in the monster isn't powerful.

[Dancing Mustard]

You are both wrong.

Oh... well I'll just take your word for it then.

Seriously, if you think I'm wrong then go take a look at my first reply to you and demonstrate where my logic and reasoning is in error. Only once you've done that can you realistically turn around and say 'so you are wrong'. Anything else is just a 'nuh uh' answer and gets us nowhere.

As long as there is a belief in something it will exist.

No it won't.

Belief in its existance will exist, but the thing itself will remain as fictional as ever.

Oh hang on, I just started believing that everybody is immortal and can never die; therefore it is true that people are going to live forever. Whoopee!

Seriously, your contention is entirely untenable. Even the simplest of thought experiments demonstrates it to be completely unsustainable. Why continue to fight such an unwinable battle instead of revising your original proposition?

My four year old believes there is a monster in his closet. I've showed him over and over that there is not a monster in there. He keeps insisting that he's disappearing or goes through a hidden passage when we look but he is still there. Although I know that there is no monster in my sons closet to him that monster is very real. And as long as that is the case then that monster exist causing me to try to disprove it to my son and him trying to prove it to me.

So, by your logic the monster both (1) exists, and (2) does not exist, simultaneously.

Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute deny that in your son's infant-mind the closet-monster seems very very real. But that isn't the same thing as it actually being real, it just means that he believes that state of affairs to be the case. They're two very very different things.

I mean, I'll happily agree with you that mere belief makes 'belief in a thing' real and that mere belief can make states of being seem real in the mind of the believer. But neither of those conclusions actually make anything genuinely manifest... to argue such a thing breaks every rule of logic known to man (as repeatedly demonstrated in this post and the one I made previously) and would essentially give us all the powers of Gods (ironic really, to accept your argument in favour of God would also simultaneously render him irrelevant). Clearly you can't be right here.


Look, I'm being as reasonable as I possibly can here, but your philosophy on this issue is clearly untenable, logic is entirely against you, and so far you haven't been able to point out a single flaw in my arguments. Surely you have to either (1) relent entirely, or (2) revise your original position. Continuing in any other fashion will push this 'debate' into the realms of farce.

[thegreekdog]

I feel a SultanofSurreal reply here - I'll try to by psychic here

"So, you're saying you have the mental capacity of a four year old?"

How's that sultan?

Now let's go for personal attacks, nice. Maybe I should have used global warming for comparison.

Sarcasm, irony, and intelligent humor is lost in these fora.

Let me esplain - the sultan, instead of arguing with a person, just calls them stupid, asinine, etc., etc., pats himself on the back, and congratulations himself on his intelligence. Despite your cogent example, I was anticipating that sultan would make such a reply. Therefore, I beat him to the punch so to speak. I was making fun of HIM, not YOU. So, if it's a personal attack, it's a personal attack on Sultan (at least that's what it was meant to be). In sum... chill out, I'm defending you.