Evidence for God from Science

Rob wrote:

Kenny wrote: To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

Even though I believe both Vishnu and unicorns to be false, I wouldn't make the charge against a Hindu that their belief in Vishnu is like belief in unicorns.

As an non-believer, I wouldn't make the charge against any believer that their God belief is equal to believing in Unicorns; but I can't say the same for other non-believers.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Just as there are some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, I am sure there are plenty of Hindu who see the Vedas as a historical document. Of course to the non-believer, neither of the books qualify thus they see no historical documents claiming God the Father existing, or any claims of Jesus being anything other than one of many religious leaders of ancient past.

The Bible is composed of a series of historical documents whereas vedic literature is purely mystical.

You seem to specialize in putting your foot in your mouth, don't you?

FL

Kenny wrote:Just as there are some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, I am sure there are plenty of Hindu who see the Vedas as a historical document. Of course to the non-believer, neither of the books qualify thus they see no historical documents claiming God the Father existing, or any claims of Jesus being anything other than one of many religious leaders of ancient past.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote:Just as there are some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, I am sure there are plenty of Hindu who see the Vedas as a historical document. Of course to the non-believer, neither of the books qualify thus they see no historical documents claiming God the Father existing, or any claims of Jesus being anything other than one of many religious leaders of ancient past.

The Bible is composed of a series of historical documents whereas vedic literature is purely mystical.

You seem to specialize in putting your foot in your mouth, don't you?

FL

The Bible is seen as a series of historical documents TO THE CHRISTIAN! To the non believer it is seen as one of many ancient religious texts.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:

Kenny wrote: To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

Even though I believe both Vishnu and unicorns to be false, I wouldn't make the charge against a Hindu that their belief in Vishnu is like belief in unicorns.

As an non-believer, I wouldn't make the charge against any believer that their God belief is equal to believing in Unicorns; but I can't say the same for other non-believers.

Ken

Ah. Well, I appreciate that, then.

Kenny wrote:The Bible is seen as a series of historical documents TO THE CHRISTIAN! To the non believer it is seen as one of many ancient religious texts.

Wrong again! The Bible is composed of historical books whether the fruitcakes among us believe it or not.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org/50

Tell us about something you understand...how about your worldview on turnips?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Kenny wrote:The Bible is seen as a series of historical documents TO THE CHRISTIAN! To the non believer it is seen as one of many ancient religious texts.

Wrong again! The Bible is composed of historical books whether the fruitcakes among us believe it or not.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/50

Tell us about something you understand...how about your worldview on turnips?

FL

A few real people and real facts inserted into a book otherwise known as fiction does not make it a "historical document". Twist and turn the facts as much as you like my friend; the Bible is not seen as a legitimate historical book by anyone outside of Christianity. (or maybe a few religions associated with Christianity) If you disagree, I challenge you to provide some historians (outside of religion) who see the Bible as a historical document.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Just as there are some Christians who see the Bible as a historical document, I am sure there are plenty of Hindu who see the Vedas as a historical document. Of course to the non-believer, neither of the books qualify thus they see no historical documents claiming God the Father existing, or any claims of Jesus being anything other than one of many religious leaders of ancient past.

Such is the sad state of willful ignornace, a direct descent into utter skepticism. I mean that in the most loving way when I say I pity you.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

That really isn't the same thing, though it MAY appear to be to skeptic.
There is a rational behind believing in God and unless there is a rational behind believing in unicorn or Vishnu or Thor then you can't compare them that way.

Of course there is a rational behind believing in God to the believer; I'm not talking about the believer, I'm talking about the unbeliever. To the unbeliever there probably isn't a rational behind the belief in God just as there isn't one behind unicorns, or Thor.

To the unbeliever it may not SEEM rational to believe in a god, but that is an argument from ignorance typically.
Now, if an unbeliever DISAGREES with the rational behind believing in God, that is a different story BUT for an unbeliever to say that there is NO rational thought behind believing in God then that is a statement of ignorance.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Rob wrote:One of the things that annoys me is this idea, and then the scripted response of "Well, we don't believe in unicorns either."

The problem is that there is no, that I know of, rich historical documentation of unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. There are only a few original sources for the unicorn and, as it turns out, it was most probably just the description of a Rhinoceros by explorers (we're talking about 1 or 2 sentences in a journal here), which was interpreted incorrectly and spread around through art in the middle ages. Using belief in unicorns as a similar to belief in the God of the Bible is so ridiculous, that it is really more of an emotional insult meant to annoy people than it is a real comparison at all.

To a person who doesn't believe in Unicorns nor God, the claims are probably the same. The history behind one vs the other may mean nothing to the unbeliever in the same sence that belief in Vishnu vs Thor may be the same to you if you believe in neither. But the person who belives in Vishnu, will point out all kinds of reasons the Vishnu claims are more credible than the Thor claims which will probably mean nothing to you, because you see them as equally false.

Ken

That really isn't the same thing, though it MAY appear to be to skeptic.
There is a rational behind believing in God and unless there is a rational behind believing in unicorn or Vishnu or Thor then you can't compare them that way.

Of course there is a rational behind believing in God to the believer; I'm not talking about the believer, I'm talking about the unbeliever. To the unbeliever there probably isn't a rational behind the belief in God just as there isn't one behind unicorns, or Thor.

To the unbeliever it may not SEEM rational to believe in a god, but that is an argument from ignorance typically.
Now, if an unbeliever DISAGREES with the rational behind believing in God, that is a different story BUT for an unbeliever to say that there is NO rational thought behind believing in God then that is a statement of ignorance.

I'm talking about the unbeliever who disagrees with the rational behind believing in God thus it would be irrational for him to believe.

Ken

If there is a rational behind belief in God then to deny that rational makes one irrational.
To state that one disagrees with rational and as such, it is in rational is paramount to saying that one disagrees that love is needed for happiness so love doesn't exist.
Disagreeing with a valid argument doesn't make the argument not valid, it just means you disagree ( for whatever reason).
Might as well say that you disagree that other planets exist in our solar system so, obviously, they don't exist.

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is a rational behind belief in God then to deny that rational makes one irrational.
To state that one disagrees with rational and as such, it is in rational is paramount to saying that one disagrees that love is needed for happiness so love doesn't exist.
Disagreeing with a valid argument doesn't make the argument not valid, it just means you disagree ( for whatever reason).
Might as well say that you disagree that other planets exist in our solar system so, obviously, they don't exist.

I think you are misunderstanding me. IOW it would be irrational to believe something you disagree with. It may be irrational for me to believe, but not you, because you believe it.

K

Kenny wrote:I think you are misunderstanding me. IOW it would be irrational to believe something you disagree with.

As it is equally irrational to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, without presenting counter-reasons for the disagreement. One of my least favorite expressions is 'let's just agree to disagree'. Unless we're talking about personal preferences (vanella vs. chocolate, for example) that statement is meaningless.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If there is a rational behind belief in God then to deny that rational makes one irrational.
To state that one disagrees with rational and as such, it is in rational is paramount to saying that one disagrees that love is needed for happiness so love doesn't exist.
Disagreeing with a valid argument doesn't make the argument not valid, it just means you disagree ( for whatever reason).
Might as well say that you disagree that other planets exist in our solar system so, obviously, they don't exist.

I think you are misunderstanding me. IOW it would be irrational to believe something you disagree with. It may be irrational for me to believe, but not you, because you believe it.

K

I understood, I just disagree.
It is rational to believe that flying is unsafe even if you disagree with the argument that it is.
Disagreeing with something doesn't mean you don't believe it. It means you disagree with it.
I could disagree with people driving cars because I am against car driving ( for whatever reason), that doesn't mean I don't believe there are reasons to drive, it simply means I disagree with them.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think you are misunderstanding me. IOW it would be irrational to believe something you disagree with.

As it is equally irrational to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, without presenting counter-reasons for the disagreement. One of my least favorite expressions is 'let's just agree to disagree'. Unless we're talking about personal preferences (vanella vs. chocolate, for example) that statement is meaningless.

I believe usually when people agree to disagree it is because they are discussing morality and that is an example of it being subjective. If it were objective, they would be able to demonstrate their position and there would be no disagreement unless one of the people are either ignorant or unreasonable. Example; I believe the Pope (religious leader) and Gloria Steinem (liberal feminist) could be equally knowledgeable on a subject like abortion yet disagree on it. One will believe life begins at conception, the other believes it begins after conception; and there is no way to prove or demonstrate whose position is right so they will have to agree to disagree because neither position can be demonstrated. It isn’t that one is more knowledgeable than the other, it’s not that one is being stubborn and refuse to admit that they are wrong, they both sincerely believe their position is right and the other one is wrong. The same for politics, religion, and a host of other subjects; I believe to agree to disagree is to recognize you are unable to demonstrate your position is superior to your opponents.

Ken