puritan lad wrote:CopaceticMan wrote:
You make a claim (God), prove it (hasn't been done, at least not to anyone's satisfaction who is an outsider), then I will
You m[ight?] believe this statement to be true, but I doubt it is. As I stated before, proving God's existence is child's play.
P1: If the human mind can obtain knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.
P2: The human mind can obtain knowledge.
Conclusion: God exists.
The problem you have isn't a lack of evidence, for you have the same evidence that we all have. The problem is that you have precommitted yourself to a materialistic workdview.
But you do know God exists, because you live in His universe, and would not be able to function without acknowledging Him in some way. Knowledge is only one area where you prove this to be true.
CopaceticMan wrote:
P.s. If the evidence is abundant, why isn't God an accepted scientific fact?
This is an argumentum ad verecundiam. Since when is science an authority on God?
First, you never gave any reason why premise 1 should be valid. If you can show premise one to be valid, then, logically, you would have proven God to be correct. Only logically though.
And you have precommitted yourself to a supernatural world view... Also, I haven't committed myself to either materialistic, or supernatural. There appears to be a natural explanation for everything. Until we can find something that can only be explained by the supernatural, the only thing you can reasonably accept is the natural. If you want to mental gymnastics to keep God in your life, fine with me. I have asked for evidence of God, not some logical proofs or accusations of me not being willing to believe.
Obviously you have evidence I don't, because I should believe if we had the same exact evidence.
First, I don't believe that God exists. So there goes your whole point about me being a closet believer. But there are naturalistic explanations for the universe, so you have to show that the most likely explanation is supernatural before I believe.
And you accusing me of a appeal to authority is wrong. That was a response to jlay, and he was claiming evidence was abundant for God's existence. My point was that if the evidence exists for everyone, why doesn't everyone believe. If the evidence is there, why hasn't anyone tested it for God's fingerprint? If the evidence is there, and is confirmable, why isn't accepted by the scientific community. If those who disbelieve are ignorant of the evidence, then be my guest take it to the news, scientists, mathematicians, whom ever, and get it announced. If it is real (confirmed as most probable, like 99.99999999999999999% sure that it is God, just like evolution), then stick a pacifier in my mouth and call me Mary, cause I will believe.
And if science isn't the authority on God? Some child raping priests (not all), or the Pope who protects them? Some priest whom everyone trusts, but knows nothing about how the world works? I'll stick to the tests, you can live with your priests.
Gman wrote:No one here has 100 percent proof that God exists. No one, including on this forum. Where are you getting this? But that doesn't mean we can't have our convictions either..
Where did I say that? I don't ever recall writing something that says "you think this is 100% true." If I did, I apologize, because I had a brain fart. Because I don't think that anyone does. (Just like I am tempted to call evolution a fact even though I know it is entirely possible the natural selection isn't the cause, but ghosts are doing it. The theory of evolution=explanation of how it occurs;fact of evolution=species change over time.)
Gman wrote:What's this? Well, everything is built on faith.. Even if you deny that God exists you still have to have faith in something else. We ALL have faith. Even you.. You cannot escape it. There is no 100 percent proof of anything.. It's all faith driven. Even in the sciences...
What do you mean by faith? As in a belief? Well yah, I'll give you that you can call atheism a belief. If you call it a religion, then you have to redefine the term, but go ahead and call it that. Under even the most loose definitions of religion (currently) atheism doesn't fit.
Faith in something else? I still don't understand what you mean. Also please see above for my apology if I mislead you.
MarcusOfLycia wrote:It actually isn't illogical... and in fact without it we wouldn't have science as we know it today (give some time to researching the history of science and you might be surprised).
Sorry I made a typo there, I meant to say Judeo-Christian God. And yes he is. The rock paradox, euthyphro's dilemma, omnipotence-and-omniscience dilemma and many more. Getting around these alone requires some mental gymnastics and is part of the reason I don't subscribe to Christianity.
MarcusOfLycia wrote:This might be an aside, but I'm beginning to wonder if the 'I'm skeptical by default' position makes any sense. If we are purely naturalistic entities, why should truth-seeking be our biological end-goal? Wouldn't it be survival? Why then do people who believe in purely naturalistic approaches to things somehow think that they are predisposed to pursue truth instead of survival?
The default position is called the Null hypothesis (a null hypothesis for a null hypothesis is both stupid and just puts you back in the positive position: negative time a negative kind-of-thing). You make the claim that God exists. I say I don't believe you/in him/(however you want to phrase it.). A good example is the invisible pink unicorn. If I say that he exists, and is in my back yard, all I would have to do is show you it and you'd believe me. If you refer to my dragon story, you'll get where I am going.
Truth-seeking is the result of our evolutionary history (this is my guess, I don't know if any biologist have ever answered/been asked this question. You should look into that.) As early homo-sapiens we were trying to come up with new ways that made it easier to hunt. Stone, slingshot, bows and arrows, etc. But as we came to the point where we didn't have to risk our lives hunting, we could settle down and look around us. We noticed patterns we never noticed before. The moon always rises at night, sun in the morning. We were able to ask why. Since we had the ability to ask questions, and the time to answer them, you start getting these people who are lucky enough to have the ability to see into the patterns. Once you get that, you start getting math (which started likely with early bartering, if one orange is worth two apples, how many apples can buy if I have ten? That kind of thing.) You also get written languages, so on and so forth. After a period, you have people asking why does wood burn, why does the sun appear to go around the earth, is the earth flat, etc. Now you have people who can make sure answers are correct, and since then, every dogma (answer) religion has put up, questions and answers have brought them down. Not all are gone, but there are WAY fewer. A simple look 200 years ago will show you that.
MarcusOfLycia wrote:Gman is right, no one has 100% 'proof' (I think evidence is the right word) of God's existence, but at least we're willing to admit that. You aren't admitting that. In fact, you are admitting that "everything (or almost everything) about the traditional Judeo-Christian [faith] is ill-logical". Really? I have a hard time believing that you are as well read as you would need to be to make such a sweeping claim. But, at the very least, it proves that you are coming from a position that I've seen before; one where you claim to be somehow superhuman in your capacity to understand the truth, while starting with the assumption that everyone you are dealing with is somehow inferior. Trust me... it doesn't make for good conversation... but it is a great way to lose friends (also have experience with this).
Again, that was a typo.
And, I am well read enough to counter many supernatural claims, but being so young (try guessing, it's less than 40
), I haven't had much time on this planet to read as much as I would like to. Also, see my apology for my misleading post, although, I still can't find where I claimed that someone has 100% proof. Where do I claim I am super-human either? Where do I claim that I have special privilege to information that no one else does? I say that I have a better understanding of science and modern theories than most, but no where do I claim that I am by any means that smartest, or most knowledgeable, or that everyone I ever talk to is inferior to me, or anything. You are being incredibly insulting, you do realize that. You have insulted me more than any other Christian I have ever met. You are making everyone you represent look bad when you insult me with baseless claims. If you mistakenly read into what I was saying and trying to infer something about me from what I am writing, I'd recommend stopping, because judging is a sin, isn't it. Are you not supposed to respect your neighbor as if you were him (I think that's how it goes, I forget, it's 1130...)?
RickD wrote:I'm sorry for the confusion. I just thought it was odd that you, as an atheist, believe that the bible says Jesus is God. Every athiest that I've talked to, says Jesus isn't God. And the bible doesn't say He is God. If Made it sound like I don't think Jesus is God, then I'm sorry again for the confusion. I believe Jesus is fully God, and fully man.
You, sir, are the only Christian I have taken a liking to. Clarifying and asking, not accusing. Answering is fine.
Every atheist says Jesus isn't God, because they don't, first, believe God exists and thinks Jesus was JUST some guy. Second, maybe because the Bible, isn't very consistent on this point (like many others, but that's another topic.) I was saying, the Bible says Jesus was/is God. I could be wrong about that, I'm no Bible scholar.
(Hey Marcus, I even said the same thing in my last post, why, if I think everyone is inferior to me, say that I could be wrong. Why wouldn't I say I'm always right, and I'm the best Bible scholar that is. Your portrait of atheists is wrong.) I have to ask you though, since you had a few typos there, are you saying that Jesus is God, or isn't.
Now Marcus, back to you.
Wanna know why some atheists are so rude and arrogant?
I don't care if you don't wanna know, I going to tell you. It's because they argue against something, say the cosmological argument, and essentially disprove it. Then some other guy comes back and, with a slightly different version, says "Ha, What about this one?!?!?!" And every other theist says something else. This doesn't just happen once, but dozens, upon dozens of times... Every time he disproves it, his ego gets bigger, his audience gets bigger, etc. This just serves to reinforce the atheism of some atheists, bring middle men into atheism. You wanna know who I am talking about. People like you (I only assume that you are like them, because you haven't said, or responded with anything useful, or even nice. If you apologize, I won't lump you with them.) (When I say people like you I mean creationists, religitards, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are smart Christians, but smart Christians will admit they are wrong, religitards don't. There are also, dumb atheists. They give people like me, and the 'bigots' you talk about, a bad name. Some of them come to atheism for the wrong reasons [imo], others just say some stupid crap. Others believe that it is entirely possible to 100% disprove God, but then sign up for the evolution theory, not evolution fact.)
I probably have a large number of typos in here, so don't accuse me of anything if you are confused with what I wrote. And if your response is accusing me of being a bigot, or something like that, just delete your post and wait till you have something worth while to respond to.
Let me clarify my original question: 1)Does God exist? Why is he the best explanation for X? Why not explanation Z, which came from scientists? 2) How do you get around all the contradictions associated with God as a being, not the book? 3) I forget what it was, I am having a brain fart.