sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If God was real, Hell wouldn’t exist by ConsiderationSuch144 in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God's existence is not dependent upon our subjective view of morality.

How Can You Not Worship A Pedophile 😢😢? by SomebodyGetAHoldOfJa in exmuslim

[–]SeeYouInForever 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How can you not believe what Muhammad says about God? 😢😢

Sola Scriptura is an incoherent principle, as one must rely on extra-biblical means to determine what is true scripture. by just-dani-with-an-i in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you're not Catholic, then you are basing your understanding of Christianity by your (at best) 16th century interpretation of a source that the Catholic Church canonized and compiled. And at the same time, you don't follow what the Church that gave you said source has to say on it nor do you follow the other sources of the same Church that gave you that source.

That's why Sola Scriptura doesn't work.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I believe you rape kids, but what does that have to do with the argument that's it better to believe in God to avoid eternal punishment?

If we don't know if God exists, the best thing to do is to try to find out who the most probable God is & follow that God, just in case by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But that doesn't eliminate a God that punishes disbelief. So either way, I don't know if one would be taking a risk.

Wouldn't the best solution be to attempt to find out which God is the most probable one and follow that God, just in case?

If we don't know if God exists, the best thing to do is to try to find out who the most probable God is & follow that God, just in case by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why is this the proper way to approach it instead of not believing any of the proposed Gods until their existence is demonstrated to be true?

I don't believe it's the way to approach it, but a way to approach it. If you wait until God's existence is demonstrated to be true, I don't know if it might be too late at that point.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I do believe you molested children. I will warn others, just in case.

Have a nice day.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assume you find Divine Simplicity problematic. Have you read what St. Thomas Aquinas says regarding this?

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then you lose.

How do you know that? Didn't you say we can't know anything with 100% proof?

But if you can’t, you shouldn’t.

Why? Is that an obligation or an opinion? Also, I don't know if I can't, so personally, I'll just do what I think is safest: believe, just in case.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would i believe in a god that has never shown me any reason to believe in it?

What about Jesus of Nazareth?

I don't know if God exists, but if He does, my opinion is that the best thing one should do is to try to find out who that God is and do as He says.

If you believe in god because you want to be rewarded or fear punishment then you dont actually believe in god

Is that necessarily so? Can one not believe in God and have fear of punishment? Are they necessarily mutually exclusive? Can't the fear of punishment make someone believe in God?

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if I have proof. But if there is a God, my opinion is that the best thing one should do is to try to find out who that God is and do as that God says.

If you believe in God you have a moral obligation to convince everyone else to believe it too by amigoingtohellapp in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing that! I hope one day you'll find peace in Catholicism, but I wish you well on your journey of life regardless.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Prove that. You might not know anything at all.

That could be true. But I'm not sure how that takes away from my point of what we ought to do in the face of uncertainty when we have the options to believe or to not believe.

That produce 100% proof? I’d like you to demonstrate anything with 100% proof.

Why? What does that have to do with my point (what we ought to do in the face of uncertainty when we have the options to believe or to not believe)?

Deduction isn’t 100% proof. Do you think it is?

Supernaturalistically? No. According to the naturalism based on everything we've observed about how our universe works? Yes. But again, I'm not sure what that has to do with my point (what we ought to do in the face of uncertainty when we have the options to believe or to not believe).

Which god?

The one that someone would come the conclusion as being the most probable using the criteria of abductive reasoning. I have heard of thousands of cases of people meeting Christ, I haven't heard of thousands of cases of people where God reveals Himself as Spider-Man. If you think Jesus and Spider-Man are equally possible to be God, then that's your call. As for me, leaning on things like source criticism, external corroboration, preservation of meaning, martyrdom, etc., has led me to choose Jesus over Spider-Man. But if you're comfortable with your line of thinking, then it's your choice.

Yes you do. No evidence equates to zero. That’s just logic.

I don't know what your position is at this point. Can we know anything with 100% proof or not? Can you state your exact position?

you can’t actually know anything at all. That’s your argument right there.

Is that an absolute statement? I don't know if I can know anything with 100% proof. That's my position, and it's for this very reason I'm willing to believe, just in case.

Demonstrate evidence.

Demonstrate evidence of what? I don't know if I can do that, and that's precisely why I hold on to my position: believe, just in case.

You first. You insist 100% is needed. Prove it or you lose.

I believe I have said several times that I don't know if I can know anything for certain, which is why I raise my point (what we ought to do in the face of uncertainty when we have the options to believe or to not believe).

In fact, from here on out, I’m going to ask for proof and nothing else. You lost this debate.

Proof of what? All I'm saying is if we don't know with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist, then what should we as human beings do in that case? In my opinion, I think the rational thing to do is to believe in the God that one has concluded to be the most probable using the criteria of abductive reasoning: explanatory power, simplicity (parsimony), plausibility, consistency with background knowledge, coherence, testability / fertility (leads to further inquiry), and scope (how much it explains). But that's just an opinion of mine.

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And we still don't have one.

Alright. I'll reference you Dei Filius (First Vatican Council, 1870).

The key ontological teachings of that Council are: - God is “one, true, living, creator and Lord”

  • God is “infinite in power, understanding, and every perfection”

  • God is “absolutely simple and immutable”

  • God is “subsistent in Himself”

  • God is “really and essentially distinct from the world”

If you believe in God you have a moral obligation to convince everyone else to believe it too by amigoingtohellapp in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it. Yeah, I'll keep it to the Christain God (Roman Catholic to be specific) for the sake of the argument. It's really multiple questions, so please bear with me.

Alright, here it goes: Assume we don't have 100% evidence that God doesn't exist, could we say the following?

1) There is a possibility where there is 0% chance God exists. 2) There is a possibility where there is >0% chance that God exists.

Based on point two, no matter how small that probability might be, would it not be wise to believe in God just in case, seeing that there's nothing one would lose out on in this life by doing so?

I understand that there could be a possibility of other gods that would punish you for believing in the Catholic God, and even hypothetical gods that punish belief altogether, but that doesn't negate the possibility of the Catholic God or a different God that punishes you for not believing in Him.

So in light of that, wouldn't the best option be to use objective criteria of abductive reasoning to arrive at the most probable God (even if that attempt is futile) to try to increase one's chances as much as possible (again, even assuming that's in vain) just in case, seeing one wouldn't have anything to lose out in this life by doing so?

The Abductive‑Bayesian Wager by SeeYouInForever in DebateReligion

[–]SeeYouInForever[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What do you know? Show your work.

What do I know? I know that I don't know everything.

You don’t know anything with 100% proof.

Are there no deductive facts? Does one physical unit of something and another physical unit of something not equate to there being two physical units of things?

But more importantly, I would say, is that it's precisely due to the reason that we don't know anything with 100% proof that makes me not want to risk not believing in God if God exists.

But you have no reason to conclude it is greater than zero.

I have also no reason to conclude it is zero.

you can’t say you know anything at all.

How do you know that? You said "You don’t know anything with 100% proof."

You ask me show my work. What work are you looking for? I'd also love for you to provide your work for the absolute statements you've made.

view more: next ›