Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Fanny Cradock · 26-06-2013 10:50pm

marienbad wrote: »

No Fanny it dos'nt . How much effort have you put into analysing and rejecting all those other religions bar your own ?

OK, so what part don't you understand? It's no good just leaving that statement hanging there.

I've read up and researched some of the larger faiths - Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, a fair bit of time into some of the ancient Pagan deities - in particular Horus - and I spent a number of months in India trying, amongst other things, to understand what Buddhism was about. But all in all loads more for me to learn. I've never claimed to be and expert in any of these beliefs. What exactly has any of this got to do with my posts?

To clarify, I'm not saying that one needs an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion or world-view to think it false. What I'm saying is that if you are going to engage with people of a particular world-view or religion then you should first understand their beliefs and represent them accurately.

Zombrex · 27-06-2013 9:08am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

That seems to be your go-to response to any of these problems with Christianity, Fanny. It is all a big misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Which of course is a very easy charge to make when you don't back it up by pointing out what exactly is being misunderstood and how is that misunderstanding relevant to the discussion.

Which is where my charge that you know all this is coming from. You must (do) know that there are serious issues with Christian doctrine, not just "rough edges" because you spend so much time ignoring dealing with these actual issues, pretending instead that it is due to a fault with those bringing up the problems.

If I spend 10 years trying to change the subject to discussion on apologetics I do have the answer for, I couldn't do that without realizing that the issues I'm trying to change the subject away from are difficult issues.

That has just become the standard response on this forum though to all problems with Christianity. You are misunderstanding Christianity, let me explain how wonderful it is so you understand properly. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 27-06-2013 9:09am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get what the debate is about.

If you get what he debate is about why have you avoided the point with time wasters and deflection? You either don't get what he debate is about, or you have purposefully attempted to steer the debate away from that point. Which makes your complaint about accurately reflecting the other side, and about people being patronizing, rather ironic.

Zombrex · 27-06-2013 9:17am

tommy2bad wrote: »

And your missing my point that God doesn't create all the systems, He created the 'world' He didn't create God so any conditions that involve God are not of His creation at all.
You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

Ok, which aspects are fixed? Is hell fixed as part of his nature independently to God? Is the manner in which hell effects humans fixed independently to him? Is the system of justice God uses fixed independently to him? Is heaven's existence and its nature fixed independently to him?

In fact what can God decide independently of the arbitrary rules and systems (which just are) that govern his nature?

You quickly run into a whole host of things that just are and God comes little more than an agent of the universe bound to carry out the rules of an arbitrary system that just exists one way rather than another way for no reason.

As a Christian are you honesty comfortable with that and how do you resolve that with both what it says in the Bible, and the notion that God is deserving of the place humans place him at (worship, devotion, love, knowing that is best)?

Fanny Cradock · 27-06-2013 9:25am

Zombrex wrote: »

That seems to be your go-to response to any of these problems with Christianity, Fanny. It is all a big misunderstanding of Christian doctrine.

Not so. I think it is reasonable to reject a particular doctrine. But this should be done from.

Zombrex wrote: »

Which of course is a very easy charge to make when you don't back it up by pointing out what exactly is being misunderstood and how is that misunderstanding relevant to the discussion.

I'm happy to point out where I think your views are incorrect with regards to the judgement. Do you want me to?

Zombrex wrote: »

If you get what he debate is about why have you avoided the point with time wasters and deflection? You either don't get what he debate is about, or you have purposefully attempted to steer the debate away from that point. Which makes your complaint about accurately reflecting the other side, and about people being patronizing, rather ironic.

Are you saying that in my time posting here (8 years or so) that what I do when discussing the fault-line between theism and atheism is engage in time wasting and deflection?

Zombrex · 27-06-2013 9:28am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm happy to point out where I think your views are incorrect with regards to the judgement. Do you want me to?

Yes please, point out the incorrect views and how they invalid the point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you saying that in my time posting here (8 years or so) that what I do when discussing the fault-line between theism and atheism is engage in time wasting and deflection?

Yes. When you arrive at an actual problem for Christian doctrine instead of attempting to deal with it and possible face the fact that it is a serious problem for Christian doctrine you, in my experience (and don't forget I've been hear for most of those years Fanny) attempt to skill-fully move the conversation away from focus on these problems to either minor and irrelevant issues with specific statements or to safe areas of Christian apologetics. As demonstrated by the fact that we have spend a number of pages discussion how patronizing we each are rather than the original point that you didn't even attempt to tackle but instead simply dismissed with a reference back to a claimed but unspecified misunderstanding about the specific nature of hell.

"Classic Fanny" as one might say.

Fanny Cradock · 27-06-2013 11:51am

OK, well let me compose a reply to you outlining why I think you have misunderstood the concept of judgement and why I think at least some of the other objections you have raised in the last number of posts are wrong. It's a very busy time for me so it will be next week at the earliest before I have the chance.

And while I think that you are incorrect about my modus operandi, I will take it as a backhanded complement that you think I go about my business of distraction with skill.

In my defence I think that I am willing to listen to others and I don't think that I misrepresent their views even if I happen to think them wrong. At the same time I'm also keen to call people up when I think they are being disingenuous or wilfully misrepresent the views of others. That might explain why we have variations of this conversation before.

marienbad · 27-06-2013 1:04pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so what part don't you understand? It's no good just leaving that statement hanging there.

I've read up and researched some of the larger faiths - Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, a fair bit of time into some of the ancient Pagan deities - in particular Horus - and I spent a number of months in India trying, amongst other things, to understand what Buddhism was about. But all in all loads more for me to learn. I've never claimed to be and expert in any of these beliefs. What exactly has any of this got to do with my posts?

To clarify, I'm not saying that one needs an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion or world-view to think it false. What I'm saying is that if you are going to engage with people of a particular world-view or religion then you should first understand their beliefs and represent them accurately.

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

Zombrex · 27-06-2013 1:32pm

marienbad wrote: »

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

That isn't quite what Fanny means.

He is saying that if you are going to say "Christian belief X is stupid" you should ensure that you are actually accurately representing belief X.

Of course it should also be pointed out that just because someone says that belief X is not being accurately representing doesn't mean it isn't, or if the specific are mistaken that doesn't mean the over all point is invalidated. There is few things more annoying that someone saying that a large point about say the nature of God's omnipotence is invalid because you got the name of a Hebrew city wrong, or the exact order of a story in the Bible the wrong way around.

If anyone wants to point out that an atheist has made a mistake with a Christian belief they should also point out why that mistake changes the point, rather than just being an irrelevant factor. Christians did this a lot with Richard Dawkins' work, particularly in the God Delusion, getting hung up on rather irrelevant specifics as a way of purposefully avoiding the wider points that Dawkins was making. It is one step up from saying your grammer is bad so I'm not going to address your arguments :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock · 27-06-2013 2:16pm

marienbad wrote: »

Can't agree with you Fanny. I came from a position of belief to unbelief. And having made that journey of debunking one religion I find it is not necessary to understand every other religion before debunking those also .

There is no benefit in understanding the the inner workings of any religion if one believes their whole premise is wrong

As Zombrex said, this isn't a response to what I said.

I've not said that you or anyone else needs to have an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion before rejecting it. I'm suggesting that if you, an unbeliever, enters a place of worship to challenge believers on a particular doctrine or a forum dedicated to a particular set of social or political or economic or philosophical beliefs then you should know what they believe and argue against the content of these beliefs, not something that looks a little like them.

It might be that I have spoken rashly and Zombrex has a perfect understanding of Hell, justification, soteriology and he represented these beliefs with fidelity. But this wouldn't change what I was saying to you. Is that clearer?

I'm still confused as to why you asked me about my own knowledge of world religions after you now suggest that you don't need to understand all religions before debunking them en masse.

marienbad · 27-06-2013 4:03pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As Zombrex said, this isn't a response to what I said.

I've not said that you or anyone else needs to have an exhaustive knowledge of a particular religion before rejecting it. I'm suggesting that if you, an unbeliever, enters a place of worship to challenge believers on a particular doctrine or a forum dedicated to a particular set of social or political or economic or philosophical beliefs then you should know what they believe and argue against the content of these beliefs, not something that looks a little like them.

It might be that I have spoken rashly and Zombrex has a perfect understanding of Hell, justification, soteriology and he represented these beliefs with fidelity. But this wouldn't change what I was saying to you. Is that clearer?

I'm still confused as to why you asked me about my own knowledge of world religions after you now suggest that you don't need to understand all religions before debunking them en masse.

This is the atheist/existence of God debates thread and I see that as the guiding principle of the thread. The fact that it is under the umbrella of Christianity is to me incidental , it could just as easily under any of the religion & spirituality threads , so I don't see it as entering your house. Maybe I am incorrect in that.

And as an off shoot of that I would be quite happy to never enter your house except but for so many of your fellow believers not being content with following their own beliefs but insisting so many others do the same and trying to enshrine those beliefs in the law of the land.

I asked about your knowledge of other beliefs in a rhetorical manner as I fully accept that it is not possible to have examined all them before rejecting them . And I presume you have done just that . In a similar way one does not have to have knowledge of Christianity and its hundreds of variants before rejecting them.

Fanny Cradock · 27-06-2013 4:18pm

marienbad wrote: »

This is the atheist/existence of God debates thread and I see that as the guiding principle of the thread. The fact that it is under the umbrella of Christianity is to me incidental , it could just as easily under any of the religion & spirituality threads , so I don't see it as entering your house. Maybe I am incorrect in that.

I'm not talking about physical location - remove any talk of forums or places if worship if you like. What I'm talking about is actively seeking out another belief in order to refute it. If you have some specific problem with this concept then please tell me what it is. Otherwise we are just going around in circles.

marienbad · 27-06-2013 4:40pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not talking about physical location - remove any talk of forums or places if worship if you like. What I'm talking about is actively seeking out another belief in order to refute it. If you have some specific problem with this concept then please tell me what it is. Otherwise we are just going around in circles.

We are going around in circles Fanny. correct me if I am wrong but you said to Zombrex that he should understand parts of your religion if he wishes to debate them ?

Based on that understanding I am merely saying that is not the case. And also saying you yourself do the same viv a vis other belief systems .

tommy2bad · 27-06-2013 4:52pm

marienbad
In a similar way one does not have to have knowledge of Christianity and its hundreds of variants before rejecting them.

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

And as an off shoot of that I would be quite happy to never enter your house except but for so many of your fellow believers not being content with following their own beliefs but insisting so many others do the same and trying to enshrine those beliefs in the law of the land.

Theirs the thing! I have another thread going where I ask why do believers feel so threatened by non believers? It seems to me that protecting their own patch by restricting others right to do the same is counterproductive. It strikes me that protecting others is the first step to self protection. First the came for...and all that.

marienbad · 27-06-2013 5:18pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

Theirs the thing! I have another thread going where I ask why do believers feel so threatened by non believers? It seems to me that protecting their own patch by restricting others right to do the same is counterproductive. It strikes me that protecting others is the first step to self protection. First the came for...and all that.

Of course I can reject them ! If I find the foundational myth - there is a god-rubbish , then I can reject them without further ado.

Christians do this all the time to every other belief system as does Islam etc. I just do it for one more than they do.

We do this all the time in every walk of life , otherwise we would get nothing done.

Fanny Cradock · 27-06-2013 6:12pm

marienbad wrote: »

We are going around in circles Fanny. correct me if I am wrong but you said to Zombrex that he should understand parts of your religion if he wishes to debate them ?

Based on that understanding I am merely saying that is not the case. And also saying you yourself do the same viv a vis other belief systems .

I said that if somebody want to debate X (with the aim of refuting X) that they should first understand X and accurately reflect what X is. RD was mentioned earlier and this is exactly what he does not do in parts of the God Delusion. An example of this would be with regards to Aquinas's 5-ways.

tommy2bad · 27-06-2013 6:45pm

marienbad wrote: »

Of course I can reject them ! If I find the foundational myth - there is a god-rubbish , then I can reject them without further ado.

Christians do this all the time to every other belief system as does Islam etc. I just do it for one more than they do.

We do this all the time in every walk of life , otherwise we would get nothing done.

The trouble with that is, you could end up rejecting something because it counter intuitive. A lot of things are and they are still facts, true and provable or at least have a good hypothesis to support them.
I'm OK with anyone saying that they are not convinced by arguments for God or even that they are convinced by arguments that their isn't any god but unless you know something about their arguments, you just look a fool arguing against the them. All you can safely say is that the basic premise is flawed not that the theory of atonement, or nirvana or any other theory based on the premise is flawed. It might be completely wrong but until the premise God dose not exist is proven it could be exactly right.
The most annoying thing is when atheists say that atonement is rubbish because hell cant exist because the bible says different things, bla bla bla. Who cares what an atheist thinks of redemption?, they don't know what your talking about let alone what they are talking about.

If you set out to demolish an argument you need to know what that argument actually is.
So many times on this thread people have come on with misunderstandings of what some christian argument is and when corrected, refuse to engage with the answer and repeat the misunderstanding. At that point I suspect a misrepresentation more than misunderstanding.
Either that or they are the ones with deeply held beliefs.
While I was typing that Fanny made my point in a more eloquent manner:rolleyes:

marienbad · 27-06-2013 7:36pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I said that if somebody want to debate X (with the aim of refuting X) that they should first understand X and accurately reflect what X is. RD was mentioned earlier and this is exactly what he does not do in parts of the God Delusion. An example of this would be with regards to Aquinas's 5-ways.

I think we are at cross purposes Fanny, all you are saying is that any discussion must have home court advantage , I say not so , I don't care about the immaculate conception , transubstantiation or the 5 proofs of St Thomas in relation to your world view but in only in a rational world view.

I know that nothing actually changes in transubstantiation , so a Christian showing me how something does change in his world is meaningless.

I expect them to show how it does in the world every one else inhabits .

I think this is the only reason atheists bring up these kinds of issue .

Morbert · 27-06-2013 8:26pm

marienbad wrote: »

I think we are at cross purposes Fanny, all you are saying is that any discussion must have home court advantage , I say not so , I don't care about the immaculate conception , transubstantiation or the 5 proofs of St Thomas in relation to your world view but in only in a rational world view.

I know that nothing actually changes in transubstantiation , so a Christian showing me how something does change in his world is meaningless.

I expect them to show how it does in the world every one else inhabits.

There is a misunderstanding between you and Fanny.

Constructive debate occurs when the topic is specific, and both sides have a good understanding of the topic. If you were debating a Catholic over transubstantiation and argued it is wrong because nothing physically changes, that would not be a good argument, because transubstantiation does not imply anything physically changes. Similarly, if you were debating a Christian over the validity atheism, that would not require any specific knowledge of the Christian doctrine.

marienbad · 27-06-2013 10:58pm

Morbert wrote: »

There is a misunderstanding between you and Fanny.

Constructive debate occurs when the topic is specific, and both sides have a good understanding of the topic. If you were debating a Catholic over transubstantiation and argued it is wrong because nothing physically changes, that would not be a good argument, because transubstantiation does not imply anything physically changes. Similarly, if you were debating a Christian over the validity atheism, that would not require any specific knowledge of the Christian doctrine.

I think you are incorrect there Morbert , at least when I was a kid we were told there was a physical change involved and no two ways about it.

tommy2bad · 27-06-2013 11:17pm

marienbad wrote: »

I think you are incorrect there Morbert , at least when I was a kid we were told there was a physical change involved and no two ways about it.

No Morbert is right, if it were physical change then it would be the doctrine of transformation or substitution or something else.
Explanation here; http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/TheSacraments/Articles/TransubstantiationExplained.aspx
It's actualy sorta a bit of both though, if it is transformed totaly into the body and blood then yes it's a physical change but not one we can observe. Actually this is what comes from mixing Plato with Moses. I have my doubts but take their word for it. Transubstantiation isn't a deal breaker for me!

Fanny Cradock · 28-06-2013 12:09am

We'll just have to leave it at that, marienbad.

marienbad · 28-06-2013 10:06am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We'll just have to leave it at that, marienbad.

No problem Fanny , I'll go back to sleep then and we won't bother with the Immaculate Conception.

Fanny Cradock · 28-06-2013 10:08am

I don't follow you.

marienbad · 28-06-2013 3:36pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't follow you.

From my point of view we may as well be discussing the laws of scrabble or rugby, They all make sense within their own closed world but in a wider context they are meaningless.

The only reason Christianity has any concern for me if because of the insistence of its believers in making rules we must all obey.

lmaopml · 29-06-2013 12:37am

marienbad wrote: »

From my point of view we may as well be discussing the laws of scrabble or rugby, They all make sense within their own closed world but in a wider context they are meaningless.

The only reason Christianity has any concern for me if because of the insistence of its believers in making rules we must all obey.

I think your concern is misplaced. A Christian will always defend the intrinsic value of the person, no matter where no matter whom. I don't know why you would be constantly surprised at that.

Especially considering that nobody will be 'forced' into being a Christian. They're family may have been Christian, but shyte happens everywhere no matter where you are born - that doesn't mean everything one is exposed to is always bad.

The education system in this country sounds like a minority who call foul at every turn and only express their own view like everybody should subscribe to an absolute value that they alone can set - pot and kettle. No regard for others at all.

Brown Bomber · 29-06-2013 2:40am

In the spirit of the A&A thread I thought I'd share this clip of an atheist going mental against some Christian people.

It's quite funny but has adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBVefn6e5-A

Mod note: Moved to Atheism/Existence of God debates.

Zombrex · 29-06-2013 11:23am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In the spirit of the A&A thread I thought I'd share this clip of an atheist going mental against some Christian people.

It's quite funny but has adult language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBVefn6e5-A

Ah UC Berkeley .. the home of the ranting lunatic since 1868.

I'm pretty sure this is staged (apparently this guy is know in Berkeley for turning up at events just to make a scene, especially if there are cameras around), but it is still pretty funny.

Though I think you missed the point of the A&A forum thread, it is the hazards people got into because of their belief in the supernatural.

The theist equivalent would be hazards atheists get into because of non-believe. Which you might find difficult to get in this Earthly realm, probably a lot more footage in hell

marienbad · 29-06-2013 11:57am

lmaopml wrote: »

I think your concern is misplaced. A Christian will always defend the intrinsic value of the person, no matter where no matter whom. I don't know why you would be constantly surprised at that.

Especially considering that nobody will be 'forced' into being a Christian. They're family may have been Christian, but shyte happens everywhere no matter where you are born - that doesn't mean everything one is exposed to is always bad.

The education system in this country sounds like a minority who call foul at every turn and only express their own view like everybody should subscribe to an absolute value that they alone can set - pot and kettle. No regard for others at all.

Well Imaopml we must not be living in the same country then , The one I live in the over 90 % of publicly funded schools are controlled by one denomination . Where a person who is gay or divorced or having an affair can be dismissed without consequences . Where even this month political literature was forced on school kids to bring home to their parents.

And that is just right now , I won't bother going into the litany of wrongs perpetrated on the citizens of this state from its foundation by a sect that saw itself above and beyond the law. Not much defending of ''the intrinsic value of the person'' shown there. But whatever about intrinsic value they sure knew the actual value when it came to arguing over any compensation didn't they !

Turtwig · 29-06-2013 1:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Ah UC Berkeley .. the home of the ranting lunatic since 1868.

I'm pretty sure this is staged (apparently this guy is know in Berkeley for turning up at events just to make a scene, especially if there are cameras around), but it is still pretty funny.

Though I think you missed the point of the A&A forum thread, it is the hazards people got into because of their belief in the supernatural.

The theist equivalent would be hazards atheists get into because of non-believe. Which you might find difficult to get in this Earthly realm, probably a lot more footage in hell

It's the hazards of any set of beliefs that are rigidly stuck to when reality is suggesting different. Usually inflicting harms upon a person or people. Atheism+ Psychics, Homeopaths, Barmy atheists, Satanists, they all make the grade.

Hazards is more reserved for when things get dark and nasty. Funny Side is used for when the funneh results.

Almaviva · 02-07-2013 11:46pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

You knida do, your free to reject them as relevant to you but your not entitled to say "it's all nonsense, I haven't bothered to check it out but I don't want anything to do with it and that's enough for me "

I wouldn't reject anything without at least examining the proposition.

Are religions not a self evident exception to the above logic though - there really is no genuine proposition there in the first place ?

tommy2bad · 03-07-2013 9:47am

Almaviva wrote: »

Are religions not a self evident exception to the above logic though - there really is no genuine proposition there in the first place ?

Hmmm... self evident exception... No. Even the FSM is worth an examination or Rusells teapot for that matter.
But you rais an interisting point, the idea that you adopt a religious belief because you are convinced of it's facts.
I don't think it works that way, belief comes first, then conviction in the facts.
It's a leap of faith, I heard someone say that the trick is to live in the leap and not land on the other side at all.

Almaviva · 03-07-2013 1:11pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hmmm... self evident exception... No. Even the FSM is worth an examination or Rusells teapot for that matter.
But you rais an interisting point, the idea that you adopt a religious belief because you are convinced of it's facts.
I don't think it works that way, belief comes first, then conviction in the facts.
It's a leap of faith, I heard someone say that the trick is to live in the leap and not land on the other side at all.

Is that not then, by definition, fantasy ?

tommy2bad · 03-07-2013 5:37pm

More hope or trust I'd call it.

Almaviva · 03-07-2013 8:21pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

More hope or trust I'd call it.

Ok. But still fantasy. Making the hope or trust just self-deception ?

tommy2bad · 03-07-2013 11:09pm

Or a visualization?
St Paul said hope is never disappointed! I think he was pointing out the difference between hope and reasonable expectation. We can reasonably expect something and be disappointed but hope is something else. We will never be disappointed because we hope in spite of the evidence. Fantasy or aspiration?

Anyway we arguing semantics at this stage, again definitions would help but language isn't designed to be precise, it's designed to leave wriggle room and ambiguity. And hope!

hinault · 05-07-2013 12:11pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

Question: Who does the burden of proof lie with, those who deny or those who accept the existence of God?

The original question asked in this thread I do believe.

Personally I don't expect an atheist to provide proof of his/her beliefs.
And I hope that no atheist would require me to provide proof of my belief in the existence of God.

Gumbi · 05-07-2013 12:13pm

hinault wrote: »

The original question asked in this thread I do believe.

Personally I don't expect an atheist to provide proof of his/her beliefs.
And I hope that no atheist would require me to provide proof of my belief in the existence of God.

I don't understand this answer at all.

If you claim God does exist, in order to demonstrate that to me, you must prove it.

Equally, if I claim that God does not exist (specifically, I positively claim this), then I have to demonstrate that to you.

hinault · 05-07-2013 12:34pm

Quo Vadis wrote: »

There is no irrefutable proof that God does / does not exist.

There cannot be, because if there was it would remove all free will, and we would be nothing but automatons serving God.

Like any loving parent would, God wants us to love him voluntarily, hence our free will to choose to believe or not.

This short life is a test for the next life which is eternal. We cannot have heaven on earth, that would serve no purpose.

At the time of your Judgement you will have no excuses, everything you did and choose in life will be reviewed in front of you.

Hell is self chosen eternal darkness and permanent separation from God and his infinite love for all eternity. The gates of hell are bolted from the inside by the arrogance of ego.

The old saying : for the believer no proof is needed and for the non-believer all the proof in the world would never be sufficient!

SebBerkovich · 05-07-2013 12:38pm

hinault wrote: »

The old saying : for the believer no proof is needed and for the non-believer all the proof in the world would never be sufficient!

Any proof would be a good start though.

Gumbi · 05-07-2013 12:40pm

Again, that's a non-answer from you.

Would you like to address the point I made regarding burden of proof?

As to Que Vardis's point about free will that you quoted - well, I would argue that belief isn't a choice. As much as the idea of a loving God might appeal to me, I simply cannot bring myself to believe it. I can't simply flip a switch and think to myself "I believe God exists".

hinault · 05-07-2013 1:05pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Any proof would be a good start though.

If I provided proof, you'd ask me for more proof and if I provided some more proof, you'd ask me for some even more proof and so it goes on.

The Gospels refer to this in the form of St.Thomas.
Even a man who had lived with and knew Jesus doubted.

onlinenerd · 05-07-2013 2:03pm

The believers will believe even if they cant prove the existence of God because Christ himself said Blessed are those who not seen me yet believe and this is what is known as faith because you cant prove God is present yet you know he is there always.

SebBerkovich · 05-07-2013 2:16pm

hinault wrote: »

If I provided proof, you'd ask me for more proof and if I provided some more proof, you'd ask me for some even more proof and so it goes on.

The Gospels refer to this in the form of St.Thomas.
Even a man who had lived with and knew Jesus doubted.

Yeah, i can kinda see what you mean. It might appear that i'm just goading you into giving some evidence that i will just disregard.

and then we're onto a different discussion so how about i give you my point of view and you might understand what all this "show me some evidence" is coming from.

It's kinda like that old Carl Sagan analogy of the invisible dragon the full thing is here but i'll summarize.
I tell you there's a Dragon in my garage and bring you to see it, when you get there i tell you it's invisible. You suggest spreading flour on the floor to catch it's footprints but then i tell you that it's a floating dragon...

This goes on for a while and as you can imagine it's frustrating.
I've been told god is invisible when i can't see him and works in "mysterious ways" when he doesn't something "out of character" like do bad things to good people.... i've more or less given up in suggesting ways that i can prove your invisible dragon exists and SO.. i just ask you directly for some evidence as to why i should believe there's a dragon there rather than going the route of Occam's Razor and concluding that there's nothing there.

hinault · 05-07-2013 2:32pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Yeah, i can kinda see what you mean. It might appear that i'm just goading you into giving some evidence that i will just disregard.

and then we're onto a different discussion so how about i give you my point of view and you might understand what all this "show me some evidence" is coming from.

It's kinda like that old Carl Sagan analogy of the invisible dragon the full thing is here but i'll summarize.
I tell you there's a Dragon in my garage and bring you to see it, when you get there i tell you it's invisible. You suggest spreading flour on the floor to catch it's footprints but then i tell you that it's a floating dragon...

This goes on for a while and as you can imagine it's frustrating.
I've been told god is invisible when i can't see him and works in "mysterious ways" when he doesn't something "out of character" like do bad things to good people.... i've more or less given up in suggesting ways that i can prove your invisible dragon exists and SO.. i just ask you directly for some evidence as to why i should believe there's a dragon there rather than going the route of Occam's Razor and concluding that there's nothing there.

I wasn't suggesting that you personally were trying to goad me but if you think I was suggesting this then I apologise

The point that I was trying to make was that all the proof in the world will never convince many people.

The argument that perhaps a percentage of proof would persuade those who don't believe is interesting and worth considering.

God gave man free will. Free will to allow man to make his own decision in all things temporal and spiritual.
God has provided evidence and it is up to each person to decide, through free will, whether to accept this evidence as proof or to reject this evidence as "disproof".

I don't know what weight of evidence is required to prove to anyone else the existence of God.

hinault · 05-07-2013 2:38pm

onlinenerd wrote: »

The believers will believe even if they cant prove the existence of God because Christ himself said Blessed are those who not seen me yet believe and this is what is known as faith because you cant prove God is present yet you know he is there always.

That is a very good summary.

Faith is belief in something which exists outside the limited measurement of this existence.

Science has made some small inroads in to the measurement of this existence.
Science has not yet been able to begin to measure the metaphysical.
I doubt science ever will be able to measure the metaphysical but that's just my personal viewpoint:)

SebBerkovich · 05-07-2013 2:45pm

hinault wrote: »

[...]
I don't know what weight of evidence is required to prove to anyone else the existence of God.

I would argue the vast majority of Christians have never considered any evidence.

The average Christian isn't converted into Christianity after reading through the Bible or hearing a sermon. They're Christian because thats all they can remember being. They weren't given an option to consider the evidence.

I'm taking a position where i'm wondering, If someone wasn't raised within a religious society is there evidence out there that could convince a reasonable adult to convert.

From what i can see, there really isn't.

onlinenerd · 05-07-2013 2:48pm

They say that Science is the study of Gods work but now now the whole science sector is based on secular scientists even if it means studying Gods Handiwork mankind will never be able to outplay Gods mind because we ourselves were created by God and the best example from Bible is when God questions Job in the book of Job in the Old Testament when Job questions why God allowed suffering for him even though he was loyal to God.

hinault · 05-07-2013 3:09pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I would argue the vast majority of Christians have never considered any evidence.

The average Christian isn't converted into Christianity after reading through the Bible or hearing a sermon. They're Christian because thats all they can remember being. They weren't given an option to consider the evidence.

I'm taking a position where i'm wondering, If someone wasn't raised within a religious society is there evidence out there that could convince a reasonable adult to convert.

From what i can see, there really isn't.

Fair enough.

I have no way personally of verifying whether or not the Earth is flat or not.
I take it on trust that what science tells me about the world being not flat is the truth.

I can read a book with a photograph in it showing me Earth from outer space.
I can read accounts from the astronauts who took that photograph.

But I'm still required to evaluate whether the photograph and the astronauts statements are truthful.
I'm still required to decide if the evidence is true!

I accept that science is probably truthful when it says the Earth is flat.

I think this example can be applied to one's faith, lack of faith. One tries to discern what is the truth. That discernment can be stronger or weaker at various times.

I know of no human who didn't not doubt God at some point, with the sole exception being Mary, the Blessed Virgin. Even when the Apostles doubted, She never ever doubted. She was the only one who stood by the Cross throughout.

SebBerkovich · 05-07-2013 3:11pm

So, God's existence is completely unprovable.

So in column A (the "god exists" column) i've got nothing.

In column B (the "god doesn't exist" column) i've got mostly circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Which isn't bad considering God is supposed to be untraceable by science.

I think it's pretty clear that a reasonable person raised would religion would be very unlikely to convert.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments