To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
2get sage combo.
What the hell is "real?"
Don't tell me you still believe in reality.
/// Weather forecast for this thread: 1 strong trollstorm coming right up. ///
I got really into studying religion for a few years and I've come to the conclusion that most of it is bullshit but it's a very nice way to get involved within a community and potentially do some cool rituals (depending on the religion). I wish religion was not as conservative. I wish the Christian churches started using psychedelics for their communion. I bet people would benefit from it more, potentially gain stronger relationships, and discover themselves better. I don't mean full blown doses but something like the equivalent of a small amount of cannabis. I think the founders of the religions (Jesus, Siddhartha, whoever wrote the Vedas, etc.) or schools of thought didn't want it to turn out the way it is currently today (i.e. blowing up innocent civilians).
I think that before the Big Bang the event that preceded it was some sort of Deity that "jump-started" the Universe. I'm not very educated in science due to slacking off all of high school but I'm revamping that and taking science courses at community college (just finishing up biology with a B).
I also think it is best that everyone interpret the "holy texts" as metaphors or symbolism to reality as opposed to literal.
>>1
"God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.)."
You assume something like that God doesn't exist, or rather that he didn't create everything; it would all be evidence of him having created it if he did.
Logically what you've said is roughly:
There is no evidence that God created the universe, therefore God is not real.
As I just said, it's possible the entirety of what we observe is evidence of God.
In any event, what you've said is fallacious. It's an example (perhaps one of the most prominent examples) of the logical fallacy, "argument from ignorance".
And before anything continues, I suggest that the definition of God be established and stated clearly, preferably by the OP.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
I think one of the strongest arguments against the popular image of a personal loving god is the existence of evil, particularly senseless suffering.
Arguing over what "senseless" suffering is seems fairly weak to me.
God /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object)
9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
>>7
That would be the "problem of evil," which has been debated for millenia by nearly every religion, except Buddhism and the dualists.
Some popular counterarguments:
I personally think the free will counterargument is the most convincing.
>>7
If absence of proof is not proof of absence, then I could make up any way that the world was created and there would be a possibility. That means that the possibility of God being existent is the exact same as say, a fat opossum underground who controls the world with psychic powers (creative, I know).
This means that God is fighting literally infinite amounts of possibilities, any which could be the truth. The only thing that makes God stand out from everyone else is that he is just the most common idea.
I suppose it's right to say that there is always a possibility, but there are an uncountable amount of possibilities that exist as well.
> If absence of proof is not proof of absence, then I could make up any way that the world was created and there would be a possibility.
You bet.
i don't know why people find that so troublesome.
> Evil exists in order that we have free will, which necessarily includes the freedom to do evil.
This is a total cop-out: A lot of suffering is caused by circumstances beyond the control of any one individual, or even group. If God allows suffering caused by no human, he cannot truly be considered good.
To exemplify, Mount Vesuvius explodes and all the inhabitants of Pompeii are killed. God could have whisked them off to safety, but chose not to. If free will was a concern to him, he could have asked them first if they wanted to die there, or preferred to be moved to safety. He did not.
I don't believe in God. I don't believe in feminist manginas like rich dawkins
>...and use science to back it up if you have to...
When you say science you mean the scientific procedure which I hardly find useful in this situation given that I'd have no controls for an experiment even if I had the right hypothesis.
>God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.)
Technically in science you can never prove anything. If you start by trying to prove something then it is not good science what you're practising there. The scientific method:
-Observation
-Hypothesis
-Experiment
-Conclusion
Is about testing a hypothesis and not trying to prove your ideas.
What I can use instead is logic by which based on syllogisms I can show how the Christian concept of god is fallible and thus, most likely, human invention (I'm not going to write it now, ask if you want me to) keep in mind that there might be another god completely alien to any human concept.
Finally, although not entirely relevant to the topic, keep in mind that religious beliefs and science are not opposite poles. It's like comparing apples to dogs, they are different things.
>Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
TRUE, I'm certain I'll use it.
>>15
"(I'm not going to write it now, ask if you want me to) "
Do it. I challenge you to do so on this holy day of 7/7/07. God shall now allow his disproof today!
>>1-16
poor lost souls of indivitualism.
Translation:
Ok, here it is:
>From Epicurus
Note that most of this only applies to the Judeo-christian version of God so this does not mean there isn't a (or many) God(s).
You can exclude me from your statement given that I sold my "soul" to a classmate in highschool.
Damn, my listing is screwed. :(
5, 6 and 7 are meant to be separated from 1-4. Same goes to 8-10.
How to use bullets instead of numbers?
Backing up >>16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
In logic, the law of noncontradiction (also called the law of contradiction) states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time".
So, whenever ANY OTHER contradiction happens in the world, it is exposed as a lie, or whatever it may be. When it happens in religion, we just blow it off. Logic at its finest!
religion and god are not interchangable. otherwise, i agree.
> Note that most of this only applies to the Judeo-christian version of God so this does not mean there isn't a (or many) God(s).
I really don't know how come the followers of the Judeo-Christian god got so full of themselves. I mean, they could have kept him just a powerful guy in the sky, and his existence might have still be plausible, but no, they had to go and make him omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, all of which are logically self-contradictory.
In the old days gods were female and benevolent. Nowadays gods are male and vindictive - a sign of the times?
They were?
In the Western tradition, that just ain't so. The God of the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible was a nasty piece of work. The God of the New Testament is a fuzzy lovey-dovey hippy. The Greek and Roman gods were vengeful sex-crazed maniacs who turned people into trees, while the goddesses only resorted to having whole cities razed out of spite.
I don't pretend to know heads from tails in the Hindu pantheon, but Shiva is the god of destruction, among a myriad other thinks. Kali was a blood-thirsty drunk who ate dead people, then evolved into eating reality itself. She spends her time hangin' ten with Shiva, when they aren't trying to dance reality to bits.
Buddhism doesn't have gods per se, but Gautama Buddha was a pretty mellow guy.
Buddhism has some of the best hells, though.
"Saṃghāta – the "crushing" Naraka. This Naraka is also upon a ground of hot iron, but is surrounded by huge masses of rock that smash together and crush the beings to a bloody jelly. When the rocks move apart again, life is restored to the being and the process starts again. Life in this Naraka is 10,368*10^10 years long."
True, but with many gods, you don't have the same "problem of evil" that you do with a single god.
1 god:
There's evil.
If god is all powerful, he caused it. If he caused it, he's evil.
If He didn't cause it, he's not all powerful. Why praise him?
Many Gods:
There's evil.
It was caused by an angry or trickster god. Ignore this god or try to bribe him.
You just praise the good gods.
>>28
Discussions are living things!
Do all things require scientific proof in order to be true?
>>31
Heeey I remember you! (Is it really you? Or do you just like that site.)
And the answer is no.
Are you implying you don't have an actual proof god exists?
Yip it's me (Sye), haven't checked back here for a while and I see the debate is still going on :-)
So, if the answer is no, why does the person (you?) claim that God does not exist because they say there is no scientific proof?
No
@ proofthatgodexists.org
If you don't mind engaging on multiple topics of discussion at once in this thread, I'm also curious what you have to say to >>13 (or about theodicy in general.)
I realize that there is can be no definite proof that there is a god or that there is no god, and that the absence of evidence does not mean that there is no god. But while there isn't any evidence for god, people tend to forget that there is lots of evidence against the existence of such a beeing.
Given the number of paradoxes omnipotence and/or omniscience create (Heavy stones, evil, beeing mutually exclusive), given the really huge number of gods no one believes in anymore (Thor, Zeus, take your pick), given some at least mildly convincing theories on the actual origin of religion and the belief in god (Say, as a byproduct of children blindly believing what their parents say, which is of great survival value - if a kid listens when you say "Stay away from the huge cliff", chances are it'll live longer), given the wildly contradictory nature of most "holy books", given the uselessness of a god in explaining creation (So, god just popped into existance?), and given that most of the things once "explained" by invoking a god are now beautifully explained by elegant scientific theories which are often backed up by mountains of evidence, and likeley several other things I can't spontaneously think of the existence of a god, any god, must be considered really, really unlikeley, even more so the existence of any of the current major gods.
Single-valued logic: God did it. "Why is (something)?" "Because God wished it so". There is only one answer. Primitive science.
Dual-valued logic: Things are black or white. There is no in-between. Greek/aristotelian science.
Multi-valued logic: Things are never black or white. There are several gradients/possibilities/solutions. Modern science.
Infinite-valued logic: Future science.
What's the difference between gradients and infinite values?
As to 13, evil exists for a reason which is perfectly sufficient for God. I, for one, would not know what I was being saved from if there were no evil. Unlike that other poster, I do not claim to have more knowledge than God with regards to our perception of evil or good. The problem of evil is actually with the atheist though, If God did NOT exist, the whole concept of 'evil' would be meaningless. What one bag of advanced primordial slime does to another bag of advanced primordial slime, whould be completely irrelevant.
The point was showing the inconsistency of believing that God would require scientific proof in order to be real.
The problem is, logical argumentation regarding the question of the existence of God ALREADY presupposes HIS existence. In order to logically argue about the existence of God, one would have to, among other things, assume the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for outside of God (and which are accounted for in the Bible). Please, however, feel free to posit another source for these laws, I shant hold my breath :-)
>>45
Did God also create arithmatic? That's another set of universal, abstract, invariant laws. I like the idea of the big ol' guy in the sky saying "Let two plus two equal four," way back when.
Anyway, I say that logic is a human abstraction (reapplied to abstract phenomena) of the universal, invariant laws of cause & effect, which were formulated by observing the natural world and which are accounted for in any physics textbook.
But maybe God created the natural world? That's cool with me; I'm a deist! Alternately, we could just be honest and admit we don't know the origin of nature or the universe, which doesn't seem to help your position any. The known (or rather, the proposed) is not inherently more probable then the unknown.
>>45
Oh wow, it's that badass flawed argument again.
Could we, as humans, exist in a universe without logic? We obviously could not, since that would throw any kind of laws of nature as we know them completley out. So, from a sufficient number of unviverses, we happen to live in our form in one of these universes where live like ours is possible, on a planet where life like ours is possible. If it was any different, we would not be able to observe anything, cause we wouldn't be here then.
It's the anthropic principle, it was old and wideley known years ago, and has gotten some theoretical backing by string theorists recently.
So, there you have your alternate explanation, which is infiniteley more likeley than some beeing which does not follow any physical laws and sometimes disregards some of the laws of logic suddenly popping into existence and deciding to create those same laws. (Besides, how does your try at an explanation proove that the christian god exists? A quick glance tells me that it only seems to attempt to proove that any god exists at all, but you seem to be focussed on prooving the christian one...)
(>>48 cont)
Also, there might very well be a perfetcly scientific explanation for our laws of logic and for the universe happening to be the way it is without invoking the antrophic principle (Altough I think that many universes are more likeley.). What you're saying is akin to "Science hasn't found an explanation, so god must have done this.". That is a dangerous thing to do, because what you should be saying is that science hasn't found an explanation yet.
A few thousand years ago, people thought the sun rose because some kind of deity dragged it across heaven or similiar things. Now, we know better. Some people thought that lightning was made by some deity swinging it's hammer. Now, we know better. Some people still believe that every sinlge beeing was created by some kind of deity, altough we have a much simpler explanation which is backed by evidence and is constantly beeing refined.
This kind of "God of the gaps" style argument is no more substantial than saying, for example, "I don't know why things fall down, it must be that invisible people are grabbing them dragging them to the ground.". That makes about as much sense.
In your previous long argument, you only ever claimed this but never backed it up. You never explained why you need specifically the christian god, and not any arbitary god.
Nor did you ever once realize that while you were attacking people for simply assuming that logic exists, you were simply assuming that God exists, which is exactly as baseless an assumption. Actually, it's a worse assumption.
One person says, "I assume that logic exist, and then make my argument."
You say, "I assume that God exist and also that he created logic for me, and then make my argument." Your argument is the by far weaker one, because it rests on not one but two arbitary assumptions.
Of course, there is little point in anybody telling you this, because you are not interested in seeking the truth, but only to support your weak faith with a pseudo-scientific argument that does not hold water but that you cannot afford to admit is flawed. If you did, you might be forced to question other parts of your belief, wouldn't you?
A real christian does not need any kind of proof to support his faith. He rejects any attempt at such a proof as a crutch for the weak. You're a sorry excuse for a christian.
There is no proof that ANY deity exist. History shows us that people make their own gods and worship them. Heck if you could fool millions of people that you are a prophet and make your own lifestyle..why not?
It's all been done before, humans don't need any deity whether they are the olympian gods, Anubis or Evil Yahweh,...
It makes things REAL, you got only one life and so has the universe.
do you have any proof that the universe only has one "life"?
Yes, one cannot make sense out of mathematics without God.
(Universal abstract, invariants)
God is not male, that is only how HE is referred to in the Bible.
As far as Epicurus goes, that equation does not take into consideration that God could have sufficient moral reason for what he does or allows.
"Also, there might very well be a perfetcly scientific explanation for our laws of logic and for the universe happening to be the way it is without invoking the antrophic principle (Altough I think that many universes are more likeley."
That's the problem with you non-believers, you live on faith.
"What you're saying is akin to "Science hasn't found an explanation, so god must have done this."
Actually what I am saying is that without God YOU have no foundation for science. All of science is based on the inductive principle or 'the uniformity of nature,' how do you account for the uniformity of nature outside of God?
Assuming that God exists accounts for logic, assuming that logic exists, accounts for nothing. By the way, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
Troll detected
>>58
Let's just give him the benefit of the doubt.
>>57
Oh c'mon, you know that is absurd. "Please proove that there is no proof!". Just show us some valid proof for a god if you happen to have it, that'd basically refute him. The burden of prooving your god is upon you, not vice-versa.
>>56
God just exists and god made the universe? Why not just throw out the middle man and go "The universe just exists"? It's just as valid.
>>55
We live on faith backed by evidence and often validated numerous times, theists live on hot air and and more often than not age-old writings of some sort from a time when having slaves and beating your wife was perfectly normal. We also usually have enough honesty not to rip other peoples statements out of context.
By the way, did you forget the part of >>48 about the anthropic principle? It's a perfecly valid explanation for the laws of logic as well as the uniformity of nature that does not invoke any god. No more "But you can't logically argue against god!" please, we can now, thank you very much.
>>54
Oh, great. So god is an immoral murdering asshole by human standards, but that's ok because he knows better.
>>53
Clearly, Pierre Samuel is god.
Can everyone please stop talking about "proof"? There is no such thing in science outside the disciplines of mathematics and formal logic, even though the OP made the mistake of mentioning "scientific proof" in his starting argument.
The burden of prooving your god is upon you, not vice-versa.
God just exists and god made the universe? Why not just throw out the middle man and go "The universe just exists"? It's just as valid.
We live on faith backed by evidence and often validated numerous times
re: "however, the proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove ANYTHING. God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, intelligibility exists, therefore God exists."
> By the way, did you forget the part of >>48 about the anthropic principle?
re: "What is your evidence that the human reasoning you use to validate this evidence, is itself valid?"
What is your evidence that the divine reasoning you call upon to validate your own evidence is itself valid? I don't think either of us have any, so let's not needlessly cast doubt on our own reasoning. If it's flawed reasoning, the course of the debate will hopefully show it as it such.
> I reject your assertion that the burden is on me, however, the proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove ANYTHING. God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility, intelligibility exists, therefore God exists.
You're cherrypicking the parts of other peoples arguments you want to respond to, and ignore the rest, which is not a good thing to do. Go back to >>48, then try this again, please.
> What is your evidence that the human reasoning you use to validate this evidence, is itself valid?
Generally, it is based on logic and has served me pretty well so far, as it has served you, I assume, and specifically, you don't seem to be able to make a point.
> Hardly, God has characteristics which account for sentience, personality, invariance, among other things, the universe does not.
Apparently, this universe does have all the neccesary preconditions for life complex enough to be sentient to develop sentient life, as is shown by me and you existing. As for the why, see, for example, >>48 and followups. (Also, even if you were right, that would still be only a proof of any god, not the christian one, not even a single one - there could be many of them.)
What is your evidence that the divine reasoning you call upon to validate your own evidence is itself valid? I don't think either of us have any, so let's not needlessly cast doubt on our own reasoning.
If it's flawed reasoning, the course of the debate will hopefully show it as it such.
You're cherrypicking the parts of other peoples arguments you want to respond to, and ignore the rest, which is not a good thing to do.
Generally, it is based on logic and has served me pretty well so far
> No, I suggested that those who believe in the anthropic principle are the ones who live on faith (blind faith actually).
I don't believe in it. I merely present it as an alternative to your assertion that God is a necessary precondition to pretty much everything. Since there is no evidence in favor of either, both are equally probable; however, the anthropic principle is slightly more scientifically valid, therefore I like it better from a personal standpoint.
> My evidence is found in the God's revealed Word. You may not agree with my evidence, however it is an account for the validity of my reasoning, an account which you do not have.
I'm willing to accept the God's revealed Word as evidence. However, if by the God's revealed Word you mean the Bible, that document has had errors, mistranslations, deletions, additions, opinions, lies, and countless other alternations introduced into it by several thousand humans over several thousand years. Its reliability now is highly suspect. Please present a factual or at least a primary source as "evidence".
> Surely you see the circularity in such a comment!!! How could you possibly know that your reasoning was flawed unless you FIRST assumed that the reasoning you used to determine this, was NOT itself flawed.
I will know it if you convince me that my reasoning is flawed using your own reasoning.
> No, I suggested that those who believe in the anthropic principle are the ones who live on faith (blind faith actually).
The anthropic principle in intself is pretty much undeniable, so I'll just assume that you actually do know what you're talking about and attacking the many-universes part. Anyways, it is still far less complex than having a god, doesn't create paradoxon, doesn't need to invoke any kind of questionable age-old writings, and has in this interpretation backing in string theory, so I would hardly call this "blind faith".
> My evidence is found in the God's revealed Word. You may not agree with my evidence, however it is an account for the validity of my reasoning, an account which you do not have.
Did it ever occur to you all the written down stuff might just be made up? For all you know, it could be, unless your god has personally visited you and assured you it's all true.
> Surely you see the circularity in such a comment!!! How could you possibly know that your reasoning was flawed unless you FIRST assumed that the reasoning you used to determine this, was NOT itself flawed.
He's talking about specific lines of reasoning.
> First of all...who says it's not a good thing to do? Is this a universal wrong? What is 'good' in your worldview? Secondly, I do not have the time to respond to everyone's entire post.
Right, add "avoiding actually responding" to the list. Anyways, as for "firstly": Generally, what I consider "good", happens to be, in my worldview. (Yay, my opinion is my opinion. Big suprise.) "Universally good", for all I care, is what the majority of human beeings consider to be good, this is very likeley evolved behavior. And, "secondly": You aren't responsing because you don't have the time, you aren't responding because you can't.
> How do you know?
Do you run around on highways? I think not. Neither do I. We both came to the conclusion that that might be unhealthy through various observations and reasoning.
>>68
I've never liked the anthropic principle because it doesn't really help explain the functioning of anything. It's offered as an explanation for why things are as they are, but it's just a trivial response. It's just, "they are as they are because if they were otherwise, they would be otherwise." I couldn't disagree with that, but it doesn't seem to say anything at all. It doesn't say what cause implies these observed effects. It sounds to me like it positions the cause as the effect.
> It sounds to me like it positions the cause as the effect.
It does, to a point. If you add a multiverse to the mix though, it becomes unlikeley that life like ours could not exist in any universe. It's possible that there are other universes which are wildly different from ours, which also brought forth life, but not as we know if, maybe not even carbon-based.
It's still just a philosophical (And to a point, physical - Now I won't claim to have in-depth knowledge about string theory, google "string theory landscape" for some articles) construct, but it's entireley possible. That suffices for here, since >>55 wanted an explanation for 'the uniformity of nature,', and this is a valid one.
I would also say that it's wildly more likeley than any alternative people have come up with, but that
> It sounds to me like it positions the cause as the effect.
It does, to a point. If you add multiple universes to the mix though, it becomes unlikeley that life like ours could not exist in any universe. It's possible that there are other universes which are wildly different from ours, which also brought forth life, but not as we know if, maybe not even carbon-based.
It's still just a philosophical (And to a point, physical - Now I won't claim to have in-depth knowledge about string theory, google "string theory landscape" for some articles) construct, but it's entireley possible. That suffices for here, since >>55 wanted an explanation for 'the uniformity of nature,', and this is a valid one.
I would also say that it's wildly more likeley than any alternative people have come up with, but I think I've already written that up as far as I can in >>39.
> Assuming that God exists accounts for logic, assuming that logic exists, accounts for nothing. By the way, how do you know that your ability to reason is valid?
In this, and in earlier arguments, your entire argument rests on the use of the word "accounts". This word has no such special meaning in a logical argument. If you want to somehow argue based on it, you will first have to define clearly to us what your use of "accounts" is supposed to mean.
Either way, your faith is still pathetically weak. Faith backed up by proof is not faith. Faith backed up by proof that transparently invalid is even less so. It is nothing but self-deception.
you will first have to define clearly to us what your use of "accounts" is supposed to mean.Where does it come from?
Faith backed up by proof is not faithYou people just don't get it do you, you would have to FIRST have FAITH that your reasoning was valid BEFORE you could use it to prove ANYTHING.
You aren't responsing because you don't have the time, you aren't responding because you can't.Ha!
> You people just don't get it do you, you would have to FIRST have FAITH that your reasoning was valid BEFORE you could use it to prove ANYTHING.
What does that have to do with your lack of faith?
What does that have to do with your lack of faith?The point, to make it ABUNDANTLY clear, is that ALL reasoning is based on faith. My faith however, makes sense out of my ability to reason, while the faith of the non-believer does not. Just like last time I was on here, no one has (or likely will) try to give an account (explain where it came from) their ability to reason.
That still has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I was saying that your grasping for a "proof of God" means that your faith in God is weak. Real christians only need faith. They don't need any kind of "proof", and they'd look down on anybody trying to create such a proof for not having enough faith.
I was saying that your grasping for a "proof of God" means that your faith in God is weak.Huh? Who says that I need proof?!? Read the website, it says that NO ONE needs proof that God exists.
If you don't need it, why do you spend so much time and effort on it?
If you don't need it, why do you spend so much time and effort on it?Because I am commanded to 'give a reason for the hope that I have,' (1 Peter 3:15) and to 'demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5)
If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.
And if you convert somebody with a logical argument, they won't have a real faith either, and they will be just as bad christians as you.
If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.Um, it has NOTHING to do with my faith. It has lots to do with yours, however.
And if you convert somebody with a logical argument, they won't have a real faith either, and they will be just as bad christians as you.Read the site again, people cannot convert people, and it ain't my job. Plus anyone who comes to faith in God via a logical argument does not come to faith in the REAL God, because that would indicate that reason and logic DO NOT depend ENIRELY on God. And buddy, I dodn't need you to tell me that I am a bad Christian, I can figure that out on my own :-)
> You aren't the only person running from God who engages me in conversation, sadly you are like most who avoid MY questions.
Unlike you, I haven't failed to answer any of your questions so far, as far as I can tell. If I have, feel free to repeat them. Answering and then giving a counter-question would be a start. Also, do not make baseless assumptions about other people.
So anyways, please answer me this one simple question: Since you have been given, many times, a possible alternate explanation for what you call the uniformity of nature (Note that this alternate explanation is even likeley, which it wouldn't even have to be.), which basically makes your "proof" crumble, why haven't you taken down, or corrected, your website yet?
> Plus anyone who comes to faith in God via a logical argument does not come to faith in the REAL God, because that would indicate that reason and logic DO NOT depend ENIRELY on God.
They don't.
> If the "reason for the hope that you have" is a simple logical argument, that's once again a pretty weak faith.
It's about your god, isn't it? I'd say it has plenty do with your faith, or lack of it. Once again, the real christians I know outright reject anything like a "proof of god", as such an idea undermines faith.
> Read the site again, people cannot convert people, and it ain't my job.
Then why are you trying to do it? Even from the perspective of your own religion, are you are doing is causing harm.
the real christians I know outright reject anything like a "proof of god"The 'real' Christians you know should read the Bible (Acts 9:22)
Then why are you trying to do it?I'm not. I am trying to obey a command.
Since you have been given, many times, a possible alternate explanation for what you call the uniformity of natureThe multiverse theory is not only a wild leap of faith, it answers nothing (as proponents of that theory admit), since it does not explain the origins of the multiple universes.
>>87
Same explanation as your god; they just suddenly pop into existence.
>>87
Oh, and what does it matter that it's a leap of faith? It's possible, thats good enough for here.
>Acts 9:22
That's pretty irrelevant. It has nothing to do with a proof of god's existence.
No, I still think you are trying to back up your own weak faith, and masking it by pretending to follow a command nobody else follows.
Or perhaps you are just acting out of vanity and trying to make yourself look more clever than those around you?
Same explanation as your god; they just suddenly pop into existence.You might do better here if you stopped attributing theories to me that I do not espouse. I do not believe that God "suddenly popped into existence," I believe that he has always existed. If you care to translate that view to 'material' entities, the floor is yours.
That's pretty irrelevant. It has nothing to do with a proof of god's existence.It has to do with proof of a deity, something which your 'real' Christian friends apparently deny.
> I believe that he has always existed.
k, sorry.
> If you care to translate that view to 'material' entities, the floor is yours.
Why would I need to? I'll just stay with "they just suddenly pop into existence.", which is a good enough explanation.
Oh, and what does it matter that it's a leap of faith? It's possible, thats good enough for here.How do you know that it is possible?
> How do you know that it is possible?
Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be.
Why would I need to? I'll just stay with "they just suddenly pop into existence.", which is a good enough explanationIf you are happy to rest your argument on material things just 'popping into existence,' from nothing, and 'creating' life, sentience, intelligence, abstract entitities, logic, human dignity, and morality, I will be happy to let anyone compare whose faith is more reasonable.
Because there is no reason why it shouldn't be.How do you know there is no reason why it shouldn't be?
>>97
This is ridiculous. You are asking me to proove something is correct, which cannot be done, that is a fundamental property of any scientific hypothesis - they can be disproved though, so if you have such a reason, out with it. If not, I'll assume there are none. It's your job to proove me wrong, not mine.
>>99
I don't know anyting for sure (<- besides that), obviously. Neither do you, which is another problem altogether with "prooving god". For all you know, all your input might be simulated, and what you regard as the word of god might be fake. For all you know, there is no past and no present, and there might only be "now".
Knowing that we do not know anything for sure besides that we do not know anything for sure is the only thing we know for sure. This is the only conclusion that needs to pressupose nothing, not even logic itself, since if logic is not there, we cannot know anything either.