1 2 > 
 
   
 

God Doesn’t Exist

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
23 April 2018 17:03
 

This isn’t a game of devil’s advocate. The burden of proof was filled a long time ago, and I’m sick of waiting for people to catch on.

Q: “What’s your proof god doesn’t exist?”
A: The fact that you don’t have a soul. No soul means no heaven and no hell.

Q: “What’s your proof that we don’t have souls?”
A: We call it brain damage.

Thank you for your time.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1798
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
24 April 2018 11:57
 
Chaz - 23 April 2018 05:03 PM

This isn’t a game of devil’s advocate. The burden of proof was filled a long time ago, and I’m sick of waiting for people to catch on.

Q: “What’s your proof god doesn’t exist?”
A: The fact that you don’t have a soul. No soul means no heaven and no hell.

Q: “What’s your proof that we don’t have souls?”
A: We call it brain damage.

Thank you for your time.

Not everyone would agree with you.

Check this out:

https://tinyurl.com/y895yod7

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
24 April 2018 16:13
 

I don’t understand how that is a disagreement. I wasn’t necessarily referring to the phenomenon known as being brain dead, but it’s not excluded. I suppose amnesia would be the specific example I had in mind. I understand their position completely, I have 3 children of my own, and it seems obvious to me that we love our children regardless of any sort of aspect that can be referred to as a soul. I say obvious, because in the majority of cases we love them before they’re even born, and when we are finally able to hold them that emotion is almost paralyzing even though we have absolutely no idea what kind of a “soul” they could have.

If I can use amnesia as an example, the person before is nothing like the person after unless they get their memory back, but those who love the person before will undoubtedly love the the person after, at least until the person after makes it abundantly clear that it’s pointless to continue loving them, but that doesn’t work the same way when you’re talking about family. Your family doesn’t care about your soul they care about your connection to them that is above other connections in the hierarchy of life.

I would love some disagreement on this subject so please bring whatever you can

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5562
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
24 April 2018 23:15
 

I agree with the substance but I don’t think that your premise is sound. You have two unqualified assertions with an unspoken inference that they are connected to each other and to the thesis. These connections may very well exist but you haven’t offered them. You haven’t given potential interlocutors the kind of access necessary to meaningfully dispute you.

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22343
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2018 04:38
 

I’m a Christian, but I don’t accept the idea of a soul as a separate entity.  Your conclusion does not account for resurrection.  There is no connection between the existence of a soul and the existence of heaven or hell. I don’t accept the idea of an eternal burning hell, but it has nothing to do with the existence of the soul.  I agree with BB that you have left out many steps.  So it’s hard to construct a rebuttal.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2018 07:59
 
Brick Bungalow - 24 April 2018 11:15 PM

I agree with the substance but I don’t think that your premise is sound. You have two unqualified assertions with an unspoken inference that they are connected to each other and to the thesis. These connections may very well exist but you haven’t offered them. You haven’t given potential interlocutors the kind of access necessary to meaningfully dispute you.

I see your point. I left it open for any dispute but I see how that was a mistake. Thank you.

EN - 25 April 2018 04:38 AM

I’m a Christian, but I don’t accept the idea of a soul as a separate entity.  Your conclusion does not account for resurrection.  There is no connection between the existence of a soul and the existence of heaven or hell. I don’t accept the idea of an eternal burning hell, but it has nothing to do with the existence of the soul.  I agree with BB that you have left out many steps.  So it’s hard to construct a rebuttal.

I don’t understand that at all. How can you be Christian if you don’t believe in hell? That was jesus’ bread and butter. How am I supposed to account for resurrection if I don’t believe in it? Are you conflating resuscitation with resurrection? They’re not the same thing. How can there be no connection between the existence of a soul and the existence of heaven or hell? Aside from limbo, those are the places your soul is supposed to go after you die, and if you don’t have a soul then there is no place for it to go after you die. I don’t understand how you logically make the contradiction that you’re Christian but don’t believe anything that would qualify you as Christian.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22343
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
25 April 2018 10:24
 
Chaz - 25 April 2018 07:59 AM
EN - 25 April 2018 04:38 AM

I’m a Christian, but I don’t accept the idea of a soul as a separate entity.  Your conclusion does not account for resurrection.  There is no connection between the existence of a soul and the existence of heaven or hell. I don’t accept the idea of an eternal burning hell, but it has nothing to do with the existence of the soul.  I agree with BB that you have left out many steps.  So it’s hard to construct a rebuttal.

I don’t understand that at all. How can you be Christian if you don’t believe in hell? That was jesus’ bread and butter. How am I supposed to account for resurrection if I don’t believe in it? Are you conflating resuscitation with resurrection? They’re not the same thing. How can there be no connection between the existence of a soul and the existence of heaven or hell? Aside from limbo, those are the places your soul is supposed to go after you die, and if you don’t have a soul then there is no place for it to go after you die. I don’t understand how you logically make the contradiction that you’re Christian but don’t believe anything that would qualify you as Christian.

There are so many problems with this I don’t know where to begin.  You don’t have to believe in any of it - but if you are going to say there is no God because there is no soul, I’m just pointing out logically that there doesn’t have to be a soul.  There could be resurrection of the body, and we would be humans just like we are now.  I have a totally different understanding of Jesus’ teachings than you do.  Hell was not his bread and butter.  Love was.  I think you have so many preconceptions that it’s not worth the effort to engage you.  Good luck.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2018 15:34
 

At least you’re honest, although terribly confused. I’ve actually read the bible from cover to cover, and Jesus spoke more about hell than love. The old testament doesn’t even mention hell as many times as he is said to have. It’s an absurd position to have that you can claim to being a part of a religion that you don’t believe. Not believing it’s true means you’re not a part of it. That’s the most appalling thing I can think of. How is society supposed to progress beyond religion when people treat it as you do? Next you’ll say that it was known from the beginning to be metaphorical, when Sam Harris even brought up the fact that they had court trials for animals. The one he specified was a case where the defense lawyer claimed that the rats on trial couldn’t attend because there were so many cats around. Your position on being christian without believing what makes someone christian is absolutely ridiculous and an insult to Christianity and frankly insults the intelligence of everyone else. I don’t know what part of this turned into insulting you but I’ll end it with your claim is sickening.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1917
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
25 April 2018 17:03
 

Chaz, I recommend for you to look into what The Jesus Seminar folks had to say about these matters. I don’t quite remember if EN is a fan of them, but he certainly seems to be.

 
 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
25 April 2018 18:52
 
nonverbal - 25 April 2018 05:03 PM

Chaz, I recommend for you to look into what The Jesus Seminar folks had to say about these matters. I don’t quite remember if EN is a fan of them, but he certainly seems to be.

Well that’s interesting. I didn’t know that group was a thing, but I have to take issue with the idea behind it in the first place, which is the possibility of anything legitimately being his words, that can be verified. It’s actually a problem, because if Jesus was indeed a living person, he had absolutely nothing to do with the production of the new testament. Every sentence was constructed by other people.

I couldn’t find anything about souls, but if they share EN’s claim that heaven and hell can exist without human souls, they completely annihilate their own work, and disprove Jesus being the messiah, and negate Christianity as a religion. No father means no son and no holy spirit.

I genuinely don’t understand that position. From my understanding, if you believe in god separate from our eternal bliss or suffering, that makes you a deist, but definitely not Christian

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1917
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
25 April 2018 21:39
 
Chaz - 25 April 2018 06:52 PM
nonverbal - 25 April 2018 05:03 PM

Chaz, I recommend for you to look into what The Jesus Seminar folks had to say about these matters. I don’t quite remember if EN is a fan of them, but he certainly seems to be.

Well that’s interesting. I didn’t know that group was a thing, but I have to take issue with the idea behind it in the first place, which is the possibility of anything legitimately being his words, that can be verified. It’s actually a problem, because if Jesus was indeed a living person, he had absolutely nothing to do with the production of the new testament. Every sentence was constructed by other people. . . .

The Jesus Seminar certainly has its critics, but as far as I can tell, most of them come from people who have perhaps too much faith in the unknown rather than too little.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5562
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
26 April 2018 01:02
 

The arching problem is that God is an amorphous and endlessly pliable basket of concepts. Possibly more than any word in our vocabulary. It’s not by accident. There have been skeptics throughout history. There has been pressure from science, proto science and basic parsimony. The fluid nature of ‘God’ is, I think no accident. It has to slip through every crack. It has to evade every focused examination.

I’ve felt for a long time that sweeping declarations about god or God or gods are an error in strategy. They turn unfalsifiability which is normally a fatal weakness of a premise into a trump card. I think it’s an unfortunate self reversal of where the burden of proof ought to lie.

My preferred tactic is to avoid the huge proof and be satisfied with a vast and unbroken series of smaller proofs that infer what many of us know. We can reasonable dismiss the individual facets of religious tradition logically and we can reject them morally. Going the further step of making a pronouncement about the universe risks wasting a very strong hand. In my opinion.

 
Chaz
 
Avatar
 
 
Chaz
Total Posts:  129
Joined  24-02-2018
 
 
 
26 April 2018 09:40
 
nonverbal - 25 April 2018 09:39 PM

The Jesus Seminar certainly has its critics, but as far as I can tell, most of them come from people who have perhaps too much faith in the unknown rather than too little.

I have to agree, but I’m at odds with placing myself among the ranks. I had to basically redefine anti-theism by adding unorthodox in order to fit it around myself. I don’t believe in belief, I only believe in questioning. It’s an oxymoron at first glance because people tend to think I believe the answers to the questions, but that’s not the case, I have a list of favorite answers that are subject to change. Someone told me that my favorite answer to what is god makes me a deist but I don’t think that’s true. Even if I believed whole heartedly in the answer, it’s still not something that exists. I’m at odds with being among the people who have faith in the unknown because I don’t like questions without answers.

Brick Bungalow - 26 April 2018 01:02 AM

The arching problem is that God is an amorphous and endlessly pliable basket of concepts. Possibly more than any word in our vocabulary. It’s not by accident. There have been skeptics throughout history. There has been pressure from science, proto science and basic parsimony. The fluid nature of ‘God’ is, I think no accident. It has to slip through every crack. It has to evade every focused examination.

I’ve felt for a long time that sweeping declarations about god or God or gods are an error in strategy. They turn unfalsifiability which is normally a fatal weakness of a premise into a trump card. I think it’s an unfortunate self reversal of where the burden of proof ought to lie.

My preferred tactic is to avoid the huge proof and be satisfied with a vast and unbroken series of smaller proofs that infer what many of us know. We can reasonable dismiss the individual facets of religious tradition logically and we can reject them morally. Going the further step of making a pronouncement about the universe risks wasting a very strong hand. In my opinion.

I like your view, but doesn’t the series add up to the risk? If you can guide someone through the series, wouldn’t it end with what you called a pronouncement about the universe?

 
leebern
 
Avatar
 
 
leebern
Total Posts:  21
Joined  17-07-2018
 
 
 
18 July 2018 09:43
 
Chaz - 23 April 2018 05:03 PM

This isn’t a game of devil’s advocate. The burden of proof was filled a long time ago, and I’m sick of waiting for people to catch on.

Q: “What’s your proof god doesn’t exist?”
A: The fact that you don’t have a soul. No soul means no heaven and no hell.

Q: “What’s your proof that we don’t have souls?”
A: We call it brain damage.

Thank you for your time.

I’ll start by saying that I’m an atheist.  I’m not quite following your logic. 

Not every “god” is associated with a concept of heaven and hell.  So you’d first need to sharpen your argument to just be about those gods that do e.g. the Christian god.  And then presumably you’d have to come up with another argument for other gods.

Second, I think it’s extraordinarily difficult and in some cases impossible to prove something doesn’t exist (in this case god and souls, or Russell’s teapot).  It doesn’t seem like a prudent path.  I much prefer the burden of proof staying with the religious person, which is where it belongs. 

Despite this, if I wanted to try and disprove the existence of a god, I’d first start by asking exactly how that person is defining “god”.  Get as much detail as possible.  Almost always the definition alone will be logically disprovable, e.g. it will reveal the problem of evil at play. 

It’s also illuminating to ask different believers in god for their definitions of god, just to see how vastly different the definitions end up being (even within the same religion).  It becomes very easy then to just state that “god” seems to be a moving target, a nebulous concept, and therefore how can anyone embark on disproving something so ill-defined?

 
Walterbl
 
Avatar
 
 
Walterbl
Total Posts:  2
Joined  17-09-2018
 
 
 
17 September 2018 08:25
 

Q: “What’s your proof that we don’t have souls?”
A: We call it brain damage.

Thast like concluding the entire operating system of a computer is wrong because the monitor doesn’t work properly.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5562
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
17 September 2018 13:39
 
Walterbl - 17 September 2018 08:25 AM

Q: “What’s your proof that we don’t have souls?”
A: We call it brain damage.

Thast like concluding the entire operating system of a computer is wrong because the monitor doesn’t work properly.

No. It’s like concluding that the operating system ceases to exist when the computer ceases to exist.

 
 1 2 >