Yep rape is hysterical and you support it, good for you two.
Evidence for God
Posts
Total:
191
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yep rape is hysterical and you support it, good for you two.
Steady now ,Witch. I find that accusation extremely offensive.
-->
@Stephen
Your little rape joke with your buddy is even more offensive than normal for you congratulations.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Your little rape joke with your buddy is even more offensive than normal for you congratulations.
-->
@Bones
Do you believe in Thor?
Not to speak for Trade but some things are simply more believable than others depending upon context and description. Not all concepts of God fit into a category of a believable premise. One doesn't need to believe in all propositions to take one realistic proposition....Thor being part of a pantheon of the gods of nature is debatable whether or not that is compatible with a Creator God that is responsible for the productions of our universe. It's not imperative to accept a myriad of nonsensical ideals for one that fits with reality.
let me say it another way, I can believe in a Creator without any need to assert there must be a God of thunder or lightning lol. I thoroughly understand the nature and phenomenon of weather and why forces of nature occur. I don't need to inject the misconception that thunder and lightning occurs at the hand of any demigod, on the other hand weather patterns exist as a part of a whole that the Creator put together. Climates exist because of the arrangement of our solar system which God created, planets exist because of God, ecosystems exist because of God ect ect....but there is no relation to lightning striking to any spiritual force other than the fact that God established our world.
It's common for a Theist to make an argument in relation to God and for an Atheist to then begin to harass the Theist about all kinds of other Gods that have been put forth as explanations for why things occur. I don't have to argue for any specific name of God given by religions and mythologies to argue for the basic concept of a Creator God. Names of Gods, personalities, responsibilities, doctrines or any extra claims about who or what God is are completely irrelevant until we reach a point where we wish to deliberate on what religions make most sense or which claims are more accurate in relation to reality.
Trade's comment (that you highlighted here) is distinctly void of any proposition put forward by religion, doctrine or mythology. There is certainly evidence (indication) for God, there is no evidence that suggests there is a hammer wielding, helmet wearing, blonde superhero running around associated with stormy weather. In this instance, why does it matter who Thor is?
If I were to make a claim about any particular religious proposition, then I would be expected to answer for the nature of my claim as compared to some other opposing proposition. Like if I said well, only the God of Abraham exists, or I believe that Thor exists... then your comment would have at least some relevance. If I'm speaking about the concept of God in relation to creation, names are irrelevant. We only need to deal with the premise that God is responsible for existence, we don't have to deal with every single claim of which God exists and which religion or myth is true.
In other words, I am not expected to answer for all absurd or opposing claims about God just because I mention God. God's existence is independent of any religious or mythological claims.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Nope. If you want to discuss that you believe in a Creator outside of all religions that make sense and everything you said applies. The minute you say I believe in Jesus or the God of Abraham and choose a religion of which that Creator exists you now have to explain why it is that none of the other religions, some of which are way older than Jesus don't merit the same standing as your Creator God. If you say you're a Christian, or believe that the God of Abraham is the creator of the universe then you're an atheist to all other religions and gods. The other atheists have every right to ask you why it is your god warrants belief and all the other ones don't. This bull crap that somehow monotheists are more enlightened than polytheist is just atheist rhetoric with one god. Once you pick a religion and say that this religion says how the world was actually created and that God's the Creator then you've chosen the other religions is wrong. Atheist + 1.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Once you pick a religion and say that this religion says how the world was actually created and that God's the Creator then you've chosen the other religions is wrong.
You just made the point I was making lol. Read that again.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If I say "Creator", I'm not making extra claims in reference to any particular view of God, or gods....I am only referencing creation as a product of an Intelligent Force. I'm not denying or supporting religious propositions.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The question was raised to Tradesecret who certainly has chosen a creator inside a religion and certainly has said that religion involves Jesus Christ so your explanation for how you feel is legit, you can not include Trade in that. He can still be asked and can decide to answer.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The question was raised to Tradesecret who certainly has chosen a creator inside a religion and certainly has said that religion involves Jesus Christ
His comment said nothing about any religious proposition, which was my point. I know what he believes, but it's not relevant to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to suggest there is a Creator.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well aware of that I believe that the creator of the universe is that has nothing to do with gods and gods are beings and evolve the same as humans in a way that's different to us on different to us because they're on different planes. I don't have any problem with anyone arguing a Creator without bringing all the other little gods into it but Tradesecret is very specific about what he thinks so he had every right to have that question posed to him.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
BTW, I'm not anti-polytheism. We've had this discussion; I believe it is compatible with monotheism. It sounds contradictory but I'm willing to explain what I mean by that. Many Gods and rulers exist, but they originate from a Singular Platform.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Well aware of that I believe that the creator of the universe is that has nothing to do with gods and gods are beings and evolve the same as humans and a way that's different to us on different planes.
Sounds like we are on the same track.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Tradesecret is very specific about what he thinks so he had every right to have that question posed to him.
Part of the point I was making is that I don't want to have to answer for every version of God to discuss the concept of a Creator. The question was put to Trade, but it's a common problem.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Yeah they will be even more confused on that one. I don't think they get deism any more than any other concept.
-->
@Bones
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.Do you believe in Thor?
On what basis are asking? In the sense of whether Thor existed or not? Or on the basis that I follow and heed his deity?
I don't know whether Thor existed or not. I certainly don't follow Thor or consider it necessary to follow him. He has never requested for me to do so. Or to listen to him or to obey him.
Is there a holy book of writing for Thor? One which the readers can be confident is actually Thor's words.
-->
@Tradesecret
It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion. And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.Do you believe in Thor?On what basis are asking?
It's not a trick question.
I don't know whether Thor existed or not.
Really? Ok, I'll change the question, do you believe in santa.
-->
@Bones
It's not a trick question.
No, not trick, but with an agenda. Yes. I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief.
I don't know whether Thor existed or not.Really? Ok, I'll change the question, do you believe in santa.
Was there an original santa or st Nickolas? Possibly. I don't know. There seems to be a certain amount of evidence for such a person. Was this person someone who flew in a sleigh and gave presents to only good children? I don't believe so. No. Could he have had a sleigh which was really fast and gave presents to everyone in his town? Possibly. IDK.
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.
Santa Clause of course is not the same as God or the same as Jesus. There is no need to conflate the two.
-->
@Tradesecret
It's not a trick question.No, not trick, but with an agenda. Yes. I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief.
An agenda is merely an intention, so yes of course I have an agenda.
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.
Do you have evidence to prove this? Can you prove his nonexistence?
-->
@Bones
It's not a trick question.No, not trick, but with an agenda. Yes. I responded by asking you to clarify. Obviously you are talking about existence - not believe as the bible talks about belief.An agenda is merely an intention, so yes of course I have an agenda.
Ok.
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.Do you have evidence to prove this? Can you prove his nonexistence?
Yes. The Bible tells me that Santa Clause is an impossibility.
-->
@Bones
Are you asking me to prove to you or to me that Santa does not exist?
-->
@Tradesecret
Do I believe that Santa Exists today? Not in the North Pole.Do you have evidence to prove this? Can you prove his nonexistence?Yes. The Bible tells me that Santa Clause is an impossibility.
Evaluate.
-->
@Tradesecret
I am asking you to prove a negative.
-->
@Bones
I am asking you to prove a negative.
I know what you are doing. I am just not playing by your rules.
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.
Your authoritative source is yourself.
I don't believe in Santa Claus. Santa Claus is not referred to in the bible. To argue he does not exist because he is not mentioned in the bible would be an argument from silence. Not a very satisfactory way of dealing with it from my mind.
Yet the Bible also tells us that there is one God. It speaks of other beings apart from humanity and the animals. It calls them spirits or angles or demons. These beings have powers beyond that of humanity. They can be invisible and take the form of humanity. They can have wings and fly. They can wield swords and fight. They have the ability to communicate with humanity - by way of temptation or direct communication. etc.
Hence, is it possible that Santa Clause is one of these beings? After according to tradition - Santa has the ability to know every child's thoughts. Not that any of the angels or spirits has the ability - being a characteristic reserved for God. Although funnily enough, many Catholics pray to Mary and to others so called saints thinking she has this ability.
Santa can fly on a sleigh with reindeer. Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire. I suppose there might be a similarity there.
Santa rewards good children with gifts. This is an interesting one. Jesus told us - we ought to be good. Yet the bible also tells us that no one is good. The bible indicates that gifts from God are not a reward but rather a gift out of mercy and grace.
I infer therefore that although Santa whom I have not met personally but is believed on by millions of children around the world is a tradition organized by parents who want to give their children a sense of excitement about Christmas - without worrying them about Jesus or thinking too hard about Jesus.
The bible indicates that beings with some of the powers that Santa has exist. Yet it also excludes some of these powers as well.
Hence- I do not have to prove a negative from powers of observation alone. That is your calling not mine.
Santa Claus as a concept exists. He is copied by millions of people and believed in by many children. Yet, despite the possibility that Santa had an original type which has been mythologised and built up over the centuries - - I am confidence he - as he is portrayed today is imaginary.
My proof - is sourced in the manner by which the Bible describes the world and the beings contained within - without.
-->
@Tradesecret
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.Your authoritative source is yourself.
The bible is flawed at every corner and was written by people who were as smart as our generations children. But nevertheless, as you are playing smart with this whole santa thing, I'll ask you one last question. I assume you know about Russell's teapot analogy. Do you think it is possible to prove that such a teapot doesn't exist.
-->
@EtrnlVw
@zedvictor4
Neither You, I nor EtrnlVw has a clue.
Lol, you have zero reason to believe that. If you don't know anything, speak for yourself, thanks.
Boom.
-->
@FLRW
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists.
Would such evidence still exist even if it did and we all "agreed" that it didn't? Does our "agreement" affect the existence of evidence of there is any?
Weall know that.
No, we don't all know that.
For example:
- God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth.
God has left none, or you simply do not consider it? There is a difference.
- None of Jesus' "miracles" left any physical evidence either.
No if you consider changed people to be evidence, or historical records to be evidence, no.
- God has never spoken to modern man,...
Why would God's existence require this?
- for example by taking over all the television stations and broadcasting a rational message to everyone.
And then people born before television would be able to make the very claim you're making.
- The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone.
Anyone who is still living. Jesus' resurrection was 2,000 years ago.
- The Bible we have is provably incorrect and is obviously the work of primitive men rather than God.
Yet this "work of primitive men" remains unsurpassed in human history as a work magnificently unequalled literature?
- When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."
Because God is a sentient person, not an algorithm. There can be no blind tests on an omniscient, omnipresent person, rendering such tests totally uninformative.
- Huge, amazing atrocities like the Holocaust and AIDS occur without any response from God.
Because they seem "huge" to you. There are bodies in the universe that are a billion times bigger than Earth. If these "atrocities" all follow either natural laws already set by God, or free human will already allowed by God, why would you logically expect any "response" from an omniscient God?
Let's agree that there is no empirical evidence showing that God exists.
Rational, logical, people cannot so agree. We could agree though that you reject the things offered as evidence. There is a difference.
And there should be evidence .
On that, we agree.
-->
@Bones
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.Your authoritative source is yourself.The bible is flawed at every corner and was written by people who were as smart as our generations children.
Yet another unprovable assertion. The bible is not flawed. That is simply your perception based upon your own measure of perfection - yourself.
But nevertheless, as you are playing smart with this whole santa thing, I'll ask you one last question. I assume you know about Russell's teapot analogy. Do you think it is possible to prove that such a teapot doesn't exist.
Yes, I have heard of it. And so have many other people. I agree with Alvin Plantinga that at the heart of the teapot is a lie. A lie that assumes there is no evidence to disprove it. You, like Russell simply conflate God with imaginary notions.
I have provided opportunities to people on this site to prove the Bible wrong - and even to prove God does not exist. No one has attempted to take it up.
One way is - since the bible says no one can choose to become a Christian all by themselves - all you need to do is demonstrate to me that you have chosen to become a christian - and then become a christian - and not just pretending for the sake of the discussion - all by yourself. Convince me of that - which is a positive and not even a negative so all on you.
And if you can - then you have proved the bible wrong - and ipso facto - in my mind at least - proved God is not true. (At least the God of the Bible) And since I don't believe in any other god - you will have succeeded.
To prove you are a Christian - you will have to demonstrate to me genuineness. And more than for five minutes. In other words - I would want it to be a true conversion - with church attendance - humble heart and attitude - a change of life. The ability to articulate the doctrines of the gospel. Perhaps even demonstrating true faith - by helping others to convert as well. Oh yes and putting your money where your heart is would contribute towards this demonstration. Once you have proved it to me - then - you will have succeeded.
Obviously, I will initially be skeptical. After all you do admittedly have an agenda - intention -
My point is - there are ways to demonstrate falsifiability even in this realm. True - I will put you through a rigorous test. But other Christians on this site will be able to do the same thing. Christians do have a bond - even in their tensions with one another.
Of course I don't believe you can do it. I am not saying you can't become a Christian. I am saying you can't do it by yourself without God's help.
I however doubt you will take this up. And the reason for that is because it has never been about the existence of God for you , it is a much deeper thing. Pride and humility. You say you like truth - yet -there is more to this than truth.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder so proof of gods. There's no actual factual, archaeological proof that any gods exist other than signs of worship. If you require proof to believe you do not have faith and are not a true believer, sorry but you're not. Any and all proof that any gods exist are based on personal experience of the believer and while those personal experiences can be shared with other people who have had those similar experiences, and agree with someone and form a religious group around those beliefs that is not proof anyone outside of those personal experiences. Your proof is not even proof to someone who believes the same as you and practices the same religion you do because their experience, while similar, is not exactly the same.
However, in that case the question is how you evaluate what you believe, considering how often people's personal experiences of meaning, or intuitions about what is true, are incorrect. Many people have personal revelations with directly opposite and contradictory conclusions. My question is how people judge between these beliefs - what kind of Gods do you choose to believe in, and how did you decide that they have these characteristics rather than others?
-->
@rbelivb
I base my measure of truth and knowledge from various sources. The most authoritative source is the Bible.Your authoritative source is yourself.The bible is flawed at every corner and was written by people who were as smart as our generations children.Yet another unprovable assertion. The bible is not flawed.
Unprovable is different from unproven.
The bible is not flawed.
The Gospels were written 50 years after Jesus' alleged death. This would be akin to writing a report on the JFK assassination without the use of security footage, journalists, Walter Cronkite and with only a handful of witnesses, none of whom were actually documenting these events as they happened.
People nowadays cannot even agree on the nature of 9/11, despite the security footage, instantaneous journalism, eye witnesses, presidential testimony, the thousands of dead people and the fact that possibly the world's most capable secret agents were testifying that this event was not an inside job - and this was merely 20 years ago (without adding that the conspiracy took substantially less than 20 years to formulate). We cannot even agree on the nature of an event which occured 20 year ago, even with our level of technology. Do you think the peasants of the bible era could have done better?
But nevertheless, as you are playing smart with this whole santa thing, I'll ask you one last question. I assume you know about Russell's teapot analogy. Do you think it is possible to prove that such a teapot doesn't exist.Yes, I have heard of it. And so have many other people. I agree with Alvin Plantinga that at the heart of the teapot is a lie. A lie that assumes there is no evidence to disprove it. You, like Russell simply conflate God with imaginary notions.
Russell is not conflating God with imaginary notions, in fact, his fundamental premise is not related to the supernatural - Russell merely attempts to demonstrate that declaring "X has not been proven to not exist therefore X exists" is a sound argument. It just so happens that theists are the most serious proponents of such argument.
I have provided opportunities to people on this site to prove the Bible wrong - and even to prove God does not exist. No one has attempted to take it up.
Let's debate then.
One way is - since the bible says no one can choose to become a Christian all by themselves - all you need to do is demonstrate to me that you have chosen to become a christian - and then become a christian - and not just pretending for the sake of the discussion - all by yourself.
You are speaking in riddles. I need to demonstrate that I have chosen to become a Christian? Such would require me to observe sufficient evidence, which places us back into square one.
I do believe that it is good that you have provided a clear "win condition" here - many theists avoid doing this at all costs. However, I ask you to articulate it a bit clearer - what would make you lose your belief in God.
To prove you are a Christian
I'm not.
In other words - I would want it to be a true conversion - with church attendance - humble heart and attitude - a change of life.
From what I am getting at, you want me to become a Christian? I am admittedly very confused.
I however doubt you will take this up. And the reason for that is because it has never been about the existence of God for you , it is a much deeper thing. Pride and humility. You say you like truth - yet -there is more to this than truth.
I want to seriously take this up - no joke. I am, at least I believe, all for truth. I would like to undergo what you seem to consider rigorous proof of God - it is just that I am having some difficulties understanding what you want exactly. From my understanding, you want me to become a Christian for the sake of proving that Christianity is false? I'll appreciate a syllogistic formulation of what you are saying.