Evidence for God from Science

Echoside wrote:

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:
Why would you not be satisfied when the arguments are sound?

Could you ask that again in a format that is not so subtly insulting? I obviously do not think the arguments are sound.

No I cannot because there was no intention to insult you. I am simply baffled that someone who appears to be intelligent cannot view the arguments as rational. Then again, denial is a very powerful thing. That is all.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:No I cannot because there was no intention to insult you. I am simply baffled that someone who appears to be intelligent cannot view the arguments as rational. Then again, denial is a very powerful thing. That is all.

Ah, the irony

jlay wrote:Are you speaking to the ontology or epistimology?

Allow me to be suspicious and ask why starting from moral skepticism is not an assumption? Because OM seems to be known a priori, doesn't seem like a problem too me.

I don't have a positive belief in moral skepticism any more than OM. Both are certainly possible, i'm just concerned with the fact that assuming one over the other when I don't see convincing evidence to prove either.

If God is proven by all means objective morality should certainly be correct, but the moral argument does the opposite. It claims to derive God from OM, and I believe i've demonstrated a reasonable alternative to reasons set forth as to why OM (might) exist.

Echoside wrote:

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:No I cannot because there was no intention to insult you. I am simply baffled that someone who appears to be intelligent cannot view the arguments as rational. Then again, denial is a very powerful thing. That is all.

Ah, the irony

Ah, of course you'd hold the position that Christians are fools who choose to deny empirical science as truth for all we need to know.
It's not that difficult really. If we're wrong and you're right, then none of us lose out and we're truly fools. But if we're right, and there is a God that you have to answer to, and you had the truth in front of you the entire time, then it's not us who's going to have to deal with that fallout. If there's reason to believe in God, then why not? What harm could it possibly do to you? You're not going to suddenly turn into some "bible thumping" freak-show and you can continue to be a moral individual.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Ah, of course you'd hold the position that Christians are fools who choose to deny empirical science as truth for all we need to know.

Replace Christians with it's negation and I think this statement would do better to sum up YOUR position, not mine. I don't even know you, it's amazing how you would presume to lecture me on what I believe. If you honestly fail to see the arrogance and sarcasm in your own statements towards me, or even how it could be perceived as such, then I am truly at a loss.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:It's not that difficult really. If we're wrong and you're right, then none of us lose out and we're truly fools.

If I'm wrong? Well of course I will be wrong, stop talking to me like i'm some kind of militant atheist. I don't even have a set belief towards morality, i'm just skeptical that you can use it to conclude God, or prove it without God.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:But if we're right, and there is a God that you have to answer to, and you had the truth in front of you the entire time, then it's not us who's going to have to deal with that fallout.

Pascal's Wager fails on a number of points, as if i could accept the holy spirit "Just in case". I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, if God exists I am indeed held accountable. Thank you for the reminder.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:If there's reason to believe in God, then why not? What harm could it possibly do to you? You're not going to suddenly turn into some "bible thumping" freak-show and you can continue to be a moral individual.

Could you please point me to the post where i referred to anyone as a "bible thumping" freak show, or would you like to continue to misrepresent me? This type of dishonest nonsense is where I draw the line with Christians, not anywhere else.

Echoside, my intent was not to insult you, and I clearly have. I also didn't intend to be dishonest for dishonesty's sake. If I misrepresented you, then it was because I believed something to be true, when it clearly was not. For this, I sincerely apologize. I am experienced in dealing with only the militant atheist types, so perhaps I read into your words too far and applied my bias to it.

I don't use the existence of morality to conclude or exclude God; that is not my stance. I simply see morality as *yet another* product of a rational and loving Creator.

Of course I can see how my comments could be perceived as arrogant or sarcastic, but in reading many of your comments, it seems as though using sarcasm is an adequate method of communication. Also, in regards to my comments about Christians being "bible thumping freak-shows", simply consider what it's like to be in our shoes. We're often labelled as such before we're even spoken to, thus arguing backwards to erase presumptions made about us.

Not that this excuses my presumptions about your intent. So again, I apologize.

I do not expect you to "accept the Holy Spirit just in case"; acceptance should come if you're open to it. You're right -- I don't know you and I don't know how open you are. But the fact that you're here, discussing morality and faith with a board made up mostly of the Christian faithful, it's difficult for me to not guess that there's something within you making you stay here and ask the questions you're asking and engaging in the conversations you're engaging in. There seems to be a minor level of acceptance there, I think the Holy Spirit is already working within you. But I could be wrong.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:Echoside, my intent was not to insult you, and I clearly have. I also didn't intend to be dishonest for dishonesty's sake. If I misrepresented you, then it was because I believed something to be true, when it clearly was not. For this, I sincerely apologize. I am experienced in dealing with only the militant atheist types, so perhaps I read into your words too far and applied my bias to it.

I don't use the existence of morality to conclude or exclude God; that is not my stance. I simply see morality as *yet another* product of a rational and loving Creator.

Of course I can see how my comments could be perceived as arrogant or sarcastic, but in reading many of your comments, it seems as though using sarcasm is an adequate method of communication. Also, in regards to my comments about Christians being "bible thumping freak-shows", simply consider what it's like to be in our shoes. We're often labelled as such before we're even spoken to, thus arguing backwards to erase presumptions made about us.

Not that this excuses my presumptions about your intent. So again, I apologize.

I do not expect you to "accept the Holy Spirit just in case"; acceptance should come if you're open to it. You're right -- I don't know you and I don't know how open you are. But the fact that you're here, discussing morality and faith with a board made up mostly of the Christian faithful, it's difficult for me to not guess that there's something within you making you stay here and ask the questions you're asking and engaging in the conversations you're engaging in. There seems to be a minor level of acceptance there, I think the Holy Spirit is already working within you. But I could be wrong.