I'm sure there are many around here who like to pose questions to the opposite side of the debate. I hear a lot of "Hey Atheists, how are you going to answer this one...?" and the same coming from the other side.

I've never heard however, someone explain that this is an unsolvable issue, regardless whether or not one side is actually correct.

Logic cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot penetrate logic.

So the problem doesn't lie in who is right or wrong, but the fact that as unintelligent society, we are addicted to fighting battles that can't be won.

Thoughts I guess?

Your assumption that "Logic cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot penetrate logic" is nonsensical and unsupported. If you are attempting to set up a dichotomy and say "people who have faith will never be swayed by logic" and vice versa, this is demonstrably false, as there are many examples of religious believers (and even religious leaders) who professed an extreme level of "faith" for many years, only to later come to the realization that their belief was not justified, and now they see the logical fallacies they used to commit.

What reason do you have to believe that this is an "unsolvable problem"? In Ancient Greece, many people surely did not believe in Zeus or any other gods, and certainly would have argued with those that did. Can we look back on that now and say it was an "unsolvable problem"?

You are correct, the problem does not lie in those who are right or wrong...It lies with those who are wrong...

These are people changing their minds, but i am talking about actually proving which side is right, it cannot be done i don't think.

you are suggesting logic proved that zuesism was wrong. Can we say we did that or does our belief system just suggest that. But more importantly I don't think we can compare it with the religions of today and find our answer from the comparison. It seems the evo of religion has changed it in such a way that our new more logical/intelligent world can't refute...monotheism, not worshiping idols that can be smashed etc. etc.

Those making a positive claim have the burden of proof, therefore anyone asserting that a god exists needs to demonstrate that this claim is true, or at least at a very basic level, justified. You seem to be talking about proving something to a level of absolute certainty. Do you believe that New Zealand exists? Are you absolutely sure? Have you ever been there? Have you actually viewed the earth from space to confirm that there is indeed a landmass there? You are right, the existence of non-existence of a god may never be proven to a degree of absolute certainty...but the same is true for any claim I could make up right now, for example, invisible space bunnies that operate on a plane of existence outside our own, except for thunderstorms, which are caused when they get angry.

Do you believe that claim? I would guess you don't. Now, is that claim something you think will ever be absolutely disprove? I would argue that it can't, at least not in any point in the foreseeable future, because the claim is inherently unprovable. However, does this mean we should give up and say "well we can't be 100%, absolutely sure that this isn't true, so it's ok for some people to believe it"?. The burden of proofs lies with those making assertions, this holds true for gods or magical space bunnies. Wherever you have encountered a claim that "a god exists", you are not justified in accepting this claim as true until it has been demonstrated. If this is the case, I'd welcome you to explain this to me, since I have heard thousands of arguments and not one has convinced me.

The biggest point here is that just because something may never(even this is debatable) be proven right or wrong does not mean discussing and debating is a useless exercise.



I'm not suggesting logic proved the Greek gods wrong...merely that at one point in history, someone could have used your same argument of "people are disagreeing, therefore the problem is unsolvable" yet now this same "problem" would nearly universally be accepted as solved (i.e. only a very, very small fraction of people still believe that these gods exists, and their beliefs are unjustified)

Perhaps a better example will help: For many thousands of years in human history, people were held as slaves by other people. Presumably since the beginning of slavery (and certainly since the written history of slavery) there have been dissenters, or people who disagreed with the practice as immoral. Your argument of "disagreement = unsolvable problem" would seemingly have applied for all those years, yet now the institution of slavery is officially abolished across the globe (obviously various human rights violations in a similar vein to slavery still continue e.g. sex trafficking, forced labor, etc.)


You previously described modern society as "unintelligent" yet now we are "more logical/intelligent", just a quick note.

And yes, it can be refuted just as easily as prior religions. Do not be tricked or confused by modern Christian apologists who disguise their centuries-old arguments in new language. Again, you need to understand the burden of proof. I don't have to prove to you, to a degree of absolute certainty, that no god exists. It lies upon the monotheists to demonstrate that their claims are valid and supported, and they have failed 100% of the time. As I mentioned earlier, you are more than welcome to give the reason why you are convinced that a god exists, and I would gladly point out any errors, logical fallacies, or unsupported assumptions you are making.

You mentioned worshiping idols which can be easily smashed, as if that was an indication of whether a religion could be disproved or not. I could easily go smash a cross in a Baptist church, break the Virgin Mary statue of a Catholic church, or destroy a Jewish menorah, yet these actions would have no bearing on the truth of the religious claims the churches were making...

Logic doesn't have to appease faith. I imagine religious people could flip that and say faith doesn't have to appease logic, but any comparison between logic and faith of that manner ignores the difference between the two words. Logic proves things which have evidence and reason behind them. Faith is a magic word for believing in something that doesn't have evidence or reason behind it.

+1

You are pointing to the Chinese proverb, if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it..... Where most people form an opinion on the subject I really think the proverbs point is to point out that you can never truly know. All the questions you are asking are a different form of mine. Also quantum physics (me throwing something out there loosely I know little about), and multiple universe theories etc. will suggest maybe new Zealand is there and maybe not.

I am of the belief that neither side can be proved. God says here I am, I am your proof.....and you can look back and say 'I dunno maybe I'm dreaming?' Some could die and see they don't go to god, or maybe they see Zeus and they can say 'Oh this isn't real soon I will be with the real god, you are just the devil'


No I think I'm saying this is one thing that 'can't' be proved or decided...you literally can't find out which side is right or wrong....maybe I'm wrong, but if i were right...there would be no point to arguing a certain side other than creating conflict that can't be solved.


Yes in this paragraph we are referring to the belief of who is right, and I think we agree zeusism (im making that word up obv but i think we understand what i mean) is kinda silly....but I don't think we really disproved it... it was belief and faith that suppressed the religion eventually.

no thats not my argument, i think my argument is, atheist vs religion is unsolvable.


please bring this thought into this thread though, so we don't open it up in here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47.../#post32818808

but our society isn't more intelligent....we just say we are


Thats the one side of the argument, the other side is god existed first and your burden lies in proving he didn't....neither side can be prove, thus the conflict goes on. Again I'm not of either side.

No you misunderstand these religions slightly I think...back then (I don't give specific time because we both agree history has been distorted) there was a time when worshiping objects with the in thing. Christianity and I think Judaism....are against that....that is the cross the virgin mary, church etc. etc. are not god, there is only god, and he is not an object and cannot be destroyed. Christ for example, is god, the father the son and the holy ghost are the same thing and not to be made idols...blah blah blah. I'm not a follower of the faith but there is a clear distinction between idols and not being able to worship them. For example paganism worships idols. The whole deal with Christianity is it doesn't.

Edit: try to be concise and I will too

you are agreeing the argument cannot be won by either side i think

Well, not exactly. For example, Christians tend to believe in the Rapture, where God will beam up the faithful and those left will be tormented etc. If this happens they will have 'won the argument' w/r/t existence of God.

Hell, no. You still misunderstand the burden of proof.

BTW theism can be proven pretty easily. All it takes is a visit by the big guy revealing himself to the world.

from an outside (and impossible perspective) yes. but you could say maybe the real god (ex. zeus) falsified this rapture and trapped us in a fake heaven. This is an example a non Christian could use. Or perhaps we are that brain in a lab that science stimulates the belief that rapture is happening etc.

i may have misunderstood, but I think people misunderstand the conflict. I agree the flipside isn't logical. But religions argue that logic is 2ndary to faith so to speak.

Here another sort of example point or thought....if god existed isn't it possible to logically prove he can't exist yet he still does....if he existed hes certainly outside of logic.

And him revealing himself would not everyones opinions, like stated above one could say, wow I must be on acid and this is a dream

Nah, I'm saying that in the real world faith is irrelevant. I'm saying that faith is equivalent to believing in Santa, the flying spahgetti monster, Shiva, The Matrix, ghosts, freemason conspiracies, etc.

Also, I'm saying that faith is dumb, opinions of people who equate faith to logic are irrelevant. Honestly, I can't prove that this forum isn't some advanced hallucination. I can't prove that I'm not in a coma, and you're just another version of myself. These ideas are exactly as likely as a god existing. That is why faith is irrelevant.

Other people can give merit to this and that, and play along with whatever reality they want to accept. I'm going to continue living in the real world, and basing my world views on observable evidence.

Something I'm surprised Religous people don't bring up, is that logic too is based on something that is just accepted on faith and can't be proven and has zero supporting evidence... I'll prob start two more threads...pretty sure I'm gonna get run off for all this talk though, but Ive never been able to talk to 'intelligent' people about this stuff.

But namely your faith in A = A any amount of supporting the axiom it will sound equal the god argument....there is no basis, there is no proof, or evidence without saying it is because it is....or to use the axiom in its own proof...which is of course illogical if we apply the concept to anything else.


Edit: the other way of saying it.... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47.../#post32819602

What? You're not making sense, once again you're equating lack of absolute proof to lack of any proof. Religion = 0% proof. Science = 99% proof. Play around with the percentages all you want, to say that there is a degree of belief in anything is correct, to equate the degree of belief between, logic, science, or reason to faith is to be ignorant of 1000's of years of human understanding.