|
Although I am a scientist I firmly believe that there are areas where logic and empirics will not help you. I think the proofs are fun to argue about, but none in my eyes are conclusive
|
On October 17 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way  as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about. I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist. As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions.
Just to clarify so I can understand you here. The god that you are defending is one that is outside of the physical realm and has zero(not minute, zero) interaction with the physical realm. Not the Christian god, correct?
|
On October 17 2013 04:27 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 02:42 Hryul wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:32 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something. Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god. I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail. I went to Catholic schools, went to different churches and been with these bible study groups, that how they would stop the arguement. You cant argue this else you are doing sin -Full stop. See what they did there? That is why if you are the kind that just does not take something told to you as an answer you will more likely look for it yourself and end up further from what was tought to you. One can really have a hard time to be convince with these, there are a million kinds of christians - "christians" themselves dont agree with each other. What you did is to reverse it, claiming we should be the one proving that there should be a god, why not prove allah, Ra and zues then? its still a god.. Not gonna explain again why you need proof. I already gave you those explanations a while back. Also, check out the Jesuits. Perhaps your church experience was bad, but that's not church doctrine at all Actually you've been a lot less clear than you make it out to be. All I can see from your side is a wild change of stance from a honest "I know I am right" to a pathetic "please believe me, because I hope that I am right" and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the burden of proof has shifted. Also something like Because the nature of god means that there can be no evidence for (or against) it's existence, empirical analysis can come to no conclusion. Therefore in absence of a logical proof that such an entity must not exust, there is no reason why faith is illogical. begs a lot of questions, first of all ofc. what your "nature of god" is that you are talking about. I assure you that my stance has not changed. I am confident in my conclusion that logic and empirics are inconclusive on the question of God. My argument is that Christians do not proclaim to *know* that god exists in a philosophical sense (true, justified belief). They only believe that god exists while accepting that there is no empirical or logical justification. However, just because there is no justification does not mean that god does not exist. Therefore I would argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist to show that there is no god. The christian basically need only show that god can exist, therefore to prove them wrong, the atheist must show that god cannot exist. As for that question, the nature of god (invisible, minute to 0 effect on the material world) means that empirics can't functionally investigate it. As for logic, we'be been having that discussion here, I have yet to find a proof against God convincing, but I'm open to suggestions. Just to clarify so I can understand you here. The god that you are defending is one that is outside of the physical realm and has zero(not minute, zero) interaction with the physical realm. Not the Christian god, correct?
For starters, this isn't necessarily a god that I believe in, but one that I am defending. I would argue that arbitrarily minute is sufficient, and yes the god exists outside of the physical realm. This is a common Christian conception of god.
|
On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote:
Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose.
Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
|
I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
|
On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote:
I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct?
So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
|
people need something to blame problems on. People need something to make them feel better about themselves.
(a lot) of religious people only believe because it makes them feel superior. (a lot) of atheists speak out because it makes them feel superior. Because it's easier to blame society problems on religion. Makes for a convenient excuse for not doing anything yourself.
|
On October 17 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote:
I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct? So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
Am I right to say that the god that you are defending did indeed interact with the Hebrews in Egypt, impregnated Mary and all of the past related stuff I mentioned, but he does not answer prayers or anything like that today?
|
On October 17 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote:
I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct? So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now.
God is very much active today.
|
On October 17 2013 04:52 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:40 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 04:38 Myrkskog wrote:
I didn't say you believed in this god.
So you are saying that the Christian version of god that you are defending never interacted with the Hebrews, did not impregnate Mary. Jesus is not the son of god, never resurrected nor was he able to cure the sick. The common Christian concept of god that you are defending does not answer prayer or speak to people through visions or prophecy. Basically, the Christian god that you are defending is not the god that someone like IronmanSC is talking about, correct? So I would say that this god had much more influence on the world in the past, but has very little now. Am I right to say that the god that you are defending did indeed interact with the Hebrews in Egypt, impregnated Mary and all of the past related stuff I mentioned, but he does not answer prayers or anything like that today?
I would say that it depends on the definition of "answer prayers", but probably not in the sense you're implying ("pls give me a hot tub").
|
So you are not defending the god claim that IronManSC is making. I am asking this because I don't think that the common god claim that you are saying Christians hold is the one that Christians actually hold.
|
On October 17 2013 04:31 blubbdavid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:21 Hryul wrote:
Edit: corumjhaelen, it's useful because otherwise hells of arbitrariness and subjectivity and post-modernism break lose. Nah. Just consider black swans, and even worse, Black Swans. The burden of proof can be life threatening and is not a principle one should live by (if it is a principle).
So you are saying that we can't predict the future and that there will be unforeseen events that shake the very foundation of today's knowledge? what an insight sherlock.
Ofc there might be electrons with a mass other than 0.5 MeV but until we actually discover them I know no reasonable way to include this into my knowledge other than: might be, might not be. Or in other words: Yes, there is a difference between logical/mathematical proof and proof by physicists (tm).
|
On October 17 2013 05:16 Myrkskog wrote:
So you are not defending the god claim that IronManSC is making. I am asking this because I don't think that the common god claim that you are saying Christians hold is the one that Christians actually hold.
I know many christians that hold views similar to those. At the risk of making an argument from personal experience, I believe it is not an incredibly rare system to believe in.
|
So the god that you are defending 1. exists outside of the physical world, and 2. does not interact with the physical world?
|
On October 17 2013 05:29 Myrkskog wrote:
So the god that you are defending 1. exists outside of the physical world, and 2. does not interact with the physical world?
I would edit 2
2. interacted with the physical world a lot in the past but now interacts with the physical world incredibly little.
|
What evidence is there that the god you are defending interacts with the physical world today?
|
On October 17 2013 05:31 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 05:29 Myrkskog wrote:
So the god that you are defending 1. exists outside of the physical world, and 2. does not interact with the physical world? I would edit 2 2. interacted with the physical world a lot in the past but now interacts with the physical world incredibly little.
Or could it just be that you're expecting him to do something big and obvious, like parting the sea or revealing himself in a pillar of fire.
|
On October 17 2013 05:34 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending interacts with the physical world today?
Not much. I basically only defend some small interaction for the purposes of prayer. In order to talk to god he must somehow affect your consciousness, unless we want to believe that the conscious brain is immaterial.
I want to stress that my conception of god is very different from IronMan
|
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
|
On October 17 2013 05:41 Myrkskog wrote:
What evidence is there that the god you are defending can affect a person's consciousness?
arguably testimony. People have said that they have an interaction with god when they pray, and it is very difficult to show otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
