Is God Omniscient?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Lousy reasoning there, I'm afraid, Brian. You've just "proved" the existence of the Muslim god too. And the existence of Thor, Zeus, Jupiter and the Flying Spaghetti Monster too.

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

Conar

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Not necessarily. The Atheist stating that the onus of proof is on Christians to prove God, is the greatest cop-out, in my opinion of our time.

Well allowing faith to override the need for proof is in my opinion the greatest cop out of all time.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives. We have seen the living God in the life of Jesus.

Have you seen the living God in the life of Jesus, or to whom are you referring when you say we?
There are so many people that "experience" paranormal activities on a daily basis but until I see proof of it then I will continue to believe they are either delusional or simply reading to much into events.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I had an Atheist once in a crowd state emphatically 'there is no God'. I asked him to show us his proof that drew him to that conclusion. He said to me, 'prove there is'. I explained that I never said there was, so I have nothing to prove.

He was dumbfounded an stumbled and stuttered as the crowd then looked to him to prove his statement. He couldn't.

As nice as it must have been to have caught someone off guard in an argument, I don't see how your little anecdote has any bearing on anything.
What does his lack of response prove?
It is up to the police to prove a crime was committed, not up to a suspect to prove it wasn't. If I told you that I could pause time would it be up to you to prove I can't etc etc..

BrianCalgary wrote: »

So over to you Conar. Is there a god?

I'm afraid not!

Soul Winner

Conar wrote: »

Sorry I'm in work and have hardly any time for posting.
I simply turned your God question into a fairy question.
Why would anyone need to have proof that something exists.
Surely the norm would be to prove that something actually does exist.

If the fairy question seems obsurd to you then surely your question in relation to Gods existence must be equally silly?

I don't believe so. The body of ancient texts and manuscripts written by very different people in different times and in different places is huge, but they have one thing in common, they are dictated by the same God with the same attributes. If you read most of the OT Prophets they usually start out with "Thus saith the word of the Lord" or “The word of the Lord came unto me saying” and so on, they never say that this is what they say. This in itself becomes a convincing argument for the existence of something external and independent to the writers. And that is very different to what we have in relation to fairies isn't it? So no its is not as silly as the question in relation to fairies, sorry.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What do atheists base their un-belief in God on? Have they proven Him to not exist? If so then where is the proof? I would really like to see it.

Depends on the atheist.

Personally I base my "un-belief" in God on a number of things

I can understand why humans would invent the concept to serve a number of purposes in culture, such as giving justification to morals, explaining aspects of nature they don't understand, providing a relief from fear of suffering and fear of death etc

My first doubts of God came from around 11 or 12 when I really started to notice how people around me hanged hope on things that actually had nothing behind them. This wasn't necessarily religious. Without getting into too much personal detail, my grand mother was very sick, and my aunt had convinced herself that she wouldn't die. There was not rational reason behind this (and she did die), but my aunt truly believed this.

My aunt is a rational person, she is a school teacher. She was perfectly aware of my grand mothers state. I asked myself how could my aunt believe this. And the conclusion I came to is that she really really wanted it to be true.

That was probably my first real experience of how the adult human mind can convince itself that something positive is true, even with little reason to believe it. It wasn't that it was certain my grand mother would die. But that was by far the most likely outcome. My aunt convinced herself that the much less likely outcome was going to happen simply because the alternative to that was too hard for her to consider.

From this experience I began to question the ability of the human mind to rationally process something when the person has something hugely invested in a positive out come, a judgment detached completely from the actual likelihood of that outcome.

This lead me to look at religion.

Religion promises the mother of all positive outcomes, an eternal life, eternal love etc. What is the actual evidence for is? Why would people believe in this so strongly? This went back to my aunt.

If one accepts that humans (all humans, not just ones with mental problems) can delude themselves into believe that the positive out come will happen, completely detached from the actual likelihood of said out come, one cannot trust the fact that so many people believe in religion as meaning anything about the likelihood it is actually real.

Long story short this lead to a serious consideration of religion, looking at how through out history and across the world, humans (again all humans) do pretty much the same thing.

The details of the religions change. Some believe in gods, others believe in spirits, others believe in aliens. The almost universal theme remains the same thought, people convincing themselves, often through elaborate stories, that the positive outcome will happen. The details of the religion, what god they worship, what they imagine the after life is like etc etc, are simply padding around this to re-enforce this belief in the positive outcome.

This is no different to my aunt thinking that my grand mother looked "much improved" the week she died. Its padding that the mind creates to appear to rationalize the hope that the positive outcome is in fact likely.

So to answer you question, I can't "prove" God doesn't exist, any more than the rest of my family could prove to my aunt that my grandmother was going to die. In fact it probably wouldn't matter even if they could. "Proof", true honest to Allah proof, exists only in mathematical circles. We can't know anything for certain, and we can convince others of certainty even less.

But I believe that humans invented gods and religion as padding around the need to believe that the positive outcome is more likely than the negative outcome (the details of that outcome changes as does the details of the padding), just in the same way that I believe that is what happened to my aunt.

The universe unfortunately doesn't care either way. Things happen, or they don't happen. There is nothing out there looking out for us. There is nothing that will make sure the positive outcome will happen over the negative outcome.

What we want to happen, what we want to be true, no matter how badly we want it, doesn't change that.

I hope that in some way answers your question.

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

Saying it exists or feeling it exists does not make it so.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

How do you mean lousy reasoning?

As steve says, just because you think there's something out there, doesn't mean there actually is.

Lots of muslims feel the presence of Allah in their lives, lost of hindus talk about the reality of Ganesh and Ram and it's pretty much the same for all the other believers and gods. By implication from your line "There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives", you've "shown" (to your standards) that all the other gods must exist too, including all the ones which are just as omnipotent, omniscient and unique as your god.

As I said, it's lousy reasoning, and it leads to a completely unjustified conclusion.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote:

Ok then let me be more specific. What do you value in life and why? And from whence comes this value system?

I value a lot of things, probably too many to list here.

I value human relationships, I value my family and friends and human life in general. It pains me to think of suffering (why I tend to get very annoyed in threads like the one on the events in the Old Testament). I value beauty and see beauty in nature around us.

Where this "value system" comes from is a complicated question.

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that a lot of our emotions that we us to form moral systems, such as guilt, empathy, love, companionship etc have evolutionary justification.

But these emotions have been coupled with our higher intelligence, and as such only form a foundation for the far more complex moral systems humans can develop.

Soul Winner wrote:

How so? If the what is believed in is infallible then it can only be dangerous to those who are threatened by it.

No, it can be dangerous to those who don't accept it as infallible.

So I'm not solely picking on religion, look at the idea in Chinese Communism that religion is damaging to society and should be routed out from all areas of the country, often with force if necessary.

Is this idea infallible? Those who follow it certain appear to believe so. They have been taught that Mao's ideas are perfect and that they cannot be challenged.

So it becomes less of a question of that I believe this idea is wrong, but more of an idea that they cannot accept that it is possible that this idea is wrong.

A religious example would be the idea that God can only do good, therefore anything that a religious person believes is done under the direction of God is moral, no matter what it is. Again it is not only that I believe this idea is wrong, but that those who believe it refuse to accept that it might be wrong. Which leads to people justifying everything from Sept 11, to the genocide in the Old Testament, simply because they believe absolutely in a perfect God that cannot do wrong.

Soul Winner wrote:

Once you can believe that He was raised from the dead as reported in the texts then that would give validity to the other claims He made about Himself

Well no actually it wouldn't.

Consider for example that he was actually Satan. How would you tell?

One of the biggest paradoxes of religion is the conflict between accepting the supernatural as possible, while also believing that we can still determine the truth behind events using our own judgment.

If the supernatural is possible then we actually lose all ability to determine anything.

Jesus could be the Son of God. Or he could have been Satan pretending to be the Son of God. Or Satan might actually be God, and God might actually be an angel pretending to be God.

Now you can say that you don't accept that, or don't believe that. But that judgment is based not on rational assessment but more on how you think it should be. God should be good and Satan should be bad. God shouldn't do bad things. Jesus did good things, he should be God. Satan should only do bad things.

Again this goes back to the "padding" I discussed in the previous post. You believe these things because you have already created a narrative to provide the positive outcome you want to be true.

Very few modern theists consider the idea of a God that can do bad as well as good things, because such a God doesn't fit into the narrative that provides the positive outcome they want. This appears to be a modern-ish phenomena, the older religions had little trouble with a God, or gods, that did bad as well as good, probably because moral concepts like that were less well defined than in modern culture.

Soul Winner wrote:

But if He did not rise as reported then He is a fraud. How can one be sure? Just study the facts in evidence. Read the record.

You can say that about any religion. Want to be shown the Scientology is real? Read Dianetics. What do be shown that Islam is real? Read the Qu'ran. Want to be shown that Hindu is real? Read the Vendas.

You can't prove that any of those things happened, but you can certainly demonstrate that people believe they did.

Soul Winner wrote:

As for the other religions of the world, well which one of their God’s claimed to rise from the grave and made the kinds of claims that Jesus made about Himself?

There have actually been tons of religion where the leader is claimed to have risen from the dead, and all of them had or have followers. There is little unique about Jesus in this regard, nor that his followers believed it happened.

Now I know you won't accept this, but again it is because you want it to be true. You rationalize that Jesus must have risen from the dead in the same way my aunt rationalized that my grand mother was getting much better.

If my aunt had been looked at a woman she didn't know who was in the same condition as my grand mother I seriously doubt she would have believed she was getting better.

In the same way you look at other religions and have no trouble saying that there is no suggestion here at all that any of this is true. People following supernatural deities doesn't in anyway suggest that the supernatural deities are real.

Soul Winner wrote:

You could argue that the biggest contradictions in the Bible are the Old and New Testaments themselves. Which is why the Old Testament had to be fulfilled before the New Testament could take off. Does that mean we cannot learn from the Old Testament? Of course not. That would be like saying just because somebody died we cannot learn from their life’s contributions.

Well it is more like someone in their 20s saying one thing and then in their 50s saying something contradictory.

The problem with that is that God doesn't age and isn't supposed to change positions or view points.

Soul Winner wrote:

For example: “If you forsake not all that you have and take up your cross and follow me then you cannot be my disciple”. Nothing wishy washy about that. Just a declaration. No basis given to it except that He says it.

Well actually that is very wishy washy.

For example, what does he actually mean by "not all"? Are you supposed to forsake everything? Your house, your clothes, your money, your job, your family, your friends, your wife?

Most Christians would say no. But on what basis do they say that. A judgment based on something else no doubt.

Soul Winner wrote:

You could argue that way for all the morals in all religions if that is the case.

You can, and I often do. All religious morality is just human morality (from an atheist perspective). We (humans) made it all up based on our own moral compass. Which is why you don't find anything in any human religion that is a spectacular moral announcement. There isn't a single moral teaching in the Bible that isn't found in countless other sources from other cultures and societies.

Soul Winner wrote:

A few examples would be nice.

Well "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"[/i]

Does that mean Christians should never go to war? Christians interpret that in vastly different ways. Some say yes, some say no. They end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Soul Winner wrote:

If we accept scripture as the source for claiming that the God revealed therein is omniscient then we must also accept from the same source God getting peed off with people.

Yes, but the fact that those two things contradict each other would that not suggest to you that the source is not divinely inspired.

You put a lot of weight in the idea that humans can determine from the consistency of the Bible that it is the truth, something that other holy books demonstrate themselves not to be.

Well, here is an example of contradiction. What does that suggest to you about the Bible?

To say that you have faith that this isn't a contradiction is illogical, because you are only supposed to have faith in the first place because the truth has been demonstrated to you through the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote:

Well it does say that God created us in His image doesn’t it?

Are we omniscent beings that exist outside of space and time with the power to create and manipulate universes at will?

You can see that somethings were exactly Xeroxed perfectly during that creation

Soul Winner wrote:

You are arguing from a purely humanistic point of view which is well and good if there really is no God but we must establish that there is no God first in order to proceed to the next step and centre all reality in how we view it.

Well no actually. Remember all this is supposed to be evidence that he does exist. The Bible is supposed to be so perfect that we can't help but conclude that it is inspired by God. You can't use the proposition that God already exists to excuse issues in the Bible itself. If you do you have to first explain a reason for believing in God that doesn't include the Bible.

Soul Winner wrote:

The same can be said about atheists. They do not know that there is no God.

You are right, they don't. But few atheists would claim they do.

The problem is that religion claims to actually, 100% certain, know things. As in this isn't wrong because God cannot be wrong.

Science has a clause in it called "falsifiability"

What this means is that it must be logically possible to demonstrate that a scientific theory, any scientific theory, is wrong. If it is impossible to demonstrate a scientific theory is wrong then it is not a scientific theory (which is one of the reasons why science ignores God in its theories)

The reason this is in science is because of the realization from science pilosophy that is it impossible to know something for certain. What ever we think we know may in fact be wrong, because we lack the ability in this universe to demonstrate beyond all doubt that something is absolutely correct.

This is a philosophy absent form religion. In fact the point of religion is the exact opposite, that being able to say for certain that something is true.

Soul Winner wrote:

Like I said earlier, if He is then what He says is just is just. He’s not taking votes on it.

But Soul Winner that is up there with the classic though experiment of the liar who claims he is not lying. How do you tell if he if what he is saying is true or not.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you believe God must be just because that fits into the narrative that you want to be true, because you want the positive out come.

The idea of an unjust God simply does not fit into that narrative. A unjust God would not guarantee the positive out come that you need to be true, so you dismiss it as simply be not something to consider.

You attempt to rationalize this as part of the padding but the rational is cyclical reasoning (the worst kind) because I seriously doubt you are basing this conclusion on reason.

Soul Winner wrote:

Just by who’s standards though? Ours or His? I can’t stress it enough. If God is then He is the criteria for what is just and un-just. You don’t have to accept it but it is still true if He exists.

But you have no reason to believe that if God exists he must be just. That is simply a assumption you are making (see above) because you want it to be true.

Soul Winner wrote:

Why can’t He reveal himself to be something and at the same time decide what the standard is?

Because then you can't judge what he did and cannot make a determination from that.

If you say that God reveals himself to be good through the Bible, that contradicts the statement that human standards of "good" are irrelevant for God.

For example, how do you know that God isn't actually Satan pretending to be God for some unknown yet evil scheme

I imagine you would say that you can judge that he isn't by what he does. He does good. Satan wouldn't do good.

But you have already said that what ever God does must be good. So even if God does something that we might consider bad, that is still good because it is God. But what if God is actually Satan pretending. Then Satan does something bad. You can't judge if this is actually bad or not, because you are working on the grounds that what ever he does is good.

Satan could be pretending to be God and you could never tell, because you have already established that what ever God does must be good. You on the one hand say that you judgment can determine God is God, yet at the same time say that your judgment is completely incapable of assessing God.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on the atheist.

Personally I base my "un-belief" in God on a number of things.

I can understand why humans would invent the concept to serve a number of purposes in culture, such as giving justification to morals, explaining aspects of nature they don't understand, providing a relief from fear of suffering and fear of death etc

But that cannot apply to the Old Testament Israelites. They claimed an outside source was directing their lives. If they had invented Jehovah why would they not pronounce His name verbally? It was claimed that God said to Moses by the name Jehovah you shall know me which meant it was a name they could utter with their lips. But they threw it back into obscurity by believing it to be too holy to utter. That is not consistent with someone deliberately creating a deity to please themselves.

Also if we are to presume that they invented their version of God then why would they give themselves a law that they could not perform practically? Why would they give themselves Sabbath years? A Sabbath year was introduced to let the land lie dormant for a year in order to regain its nutrients. It meant that they could not plough the land every seventh year, which meant no crops for that year. If they invented their God why would they introduce this law which they broke continually? Which was the reason they were brought into bondage to Babylon for 70 years so God could claim back all Sabbath years they ploughed the land? It doesn’t make sense that they would invent laws like this if they weren’t prepared to obey them. And that’s just one example. I can find more nonsensical examples. When one reads the record it reads to me like they are being dealt with by someone outside of their realm of existence, dictating things that they should do in order to oracle-ise His purposes through them. Like making sure that Moses builds the Ark of the Covenant exactly with the materials and the dimensions that was given to him. What purpose does it serve to kill the High Priest who didn’t present the yearly sacrifice if it wasn’t acceptable as in free from all blemishes like warts etc..? And if these stories are just made up what possible benefit can they have to anyone? “Who writes this stuff?” one might ask. It’s only when you come to the New Testament do you find the full meaning of these types and shadows (as Paul calls them) the substance of which is Christ. The Ark was made of acacia wood and gold the two natures of Christ man (acacia wood) and God (Gold). It contained the unbroken tablets of the law because only in Christ is the law kept unbroken. It also contained Aaron’s rod with budded back to life which symbolises Christ’s death and resurrection and the Manna bread which came down from God out of Heaven, Christ was the bread of life which came down from heaven. He is also symbolised throughout the tabernacle but it would be too lengthy to go into here.

Wicknight wrote: »

My first doubts of God came from around 11 or 12 when I really started to notice how people around me hanged hope on things that actually had nothing behind them. This wasn't necessarily religious. Without getting into too much personal detail, my grand mother was very sick, and my aunt had convinced herself that she wouldn't die. There was not rational reason behind this (and she did die), but my aunt truly believed this.

My aunt is a rational person, she is a school teacher. She was perfectly aware of my grand mothers state. I asked myself how could my aunt believe this. And the conclusion I came to is that she really really wanted it to be true.

That was probably my first real experience of how the adult human mind can convince itself that something positive is true, even with little reason to believe it. It wasn't that it was certain my grand mother would die. But that was by far the most likely outcome. My aunt convinced herself that the much less likely outcome was going to happen simply because the alternative to that was too hard for her to consider.



From this experience I began to question the ability of the human mind to rationally process something when the person has something hugely invested in a positive out come, a judgment detached completely from the actual likelihood of that outcome.

This lead me to look at religion.

Religion promises the mother of all positive outcomes, an eternal life, eternal love etc. What is the actual evidence for is? Why would people believe in this so strongly? This went back to my aunt.

If one accepts that humans (all humans, not just ones with mental problems) can delude themselves into believe that the positive out come will happen, completely detached from the actual likelihood of said out come, one cannot trust the fact that so many people believe in religion as meaning anything about the likelihood it is actually real.

Long story short this lead to a serious consideration of religion, looking at how through out history and across the world, humans (again all humans) do pretty much the same thing.

The details of the religions change. Some believe in gods, others believe in spirits, others believe in aliens. The almost universal theme remains the same thought, people convincing themselves, often through elaborate stories, that the positive outcome will happen. The details of the religion, what god they worship, what they imagine the after life is like etc etc, are simply padding around this to re-enforce this belief in the positive outcome.

But that is not what the New Testament teaches though. You are judging all religions the same with a limited knowledge and understanding of any of them. In the New Testament Christians where first persecuted by the Jews because they departed from the Law of Moses and for preaching a new message apart from that Law and then by the Romans because they became the scapegoat of the Empire’s problems. They were used as lights to light up the gardens of Nero when they where burnt to death at the stake. Whole families where thrown to lions singing praises to Jesus. And all because they believed in a Person who they believed rose from the dead. Even Pilate washed his hands of His blood because there was no true cause to crucify Him. These stories are written as an historical record of the events that took place. They were not written down as fables in order to tickle the religious urge. Forgive me for saying but you’re very limited understanding and knowledge of religion is not a good focus meter to adjudge things you’ve obviously never studied in dept. The personal circumstances you describe with your Aunt and Grandmother are sad in the natural but nowhere in scripture does it say these things will not happen to you as some point in your life. In fact Jesus Himself says that in this world you will have tribulation. If what happened to you personally is proof that there is no God then it could be argued that the many miracles which people report daily in their own lives is proof that there is. And we all know hoe most atheists feel about that kind of testimony.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is no different to my aunt thinking that my grand mother looked "much improved" the week she died. Its padding that the mind creates to appear to rationalize the hope that the positive outcome is in fact likely.

The mind might indeed create padding to soften the blows life inevitably dishes out but this has nothing to with the existence of God. Just because one gets disillusioned with life’s negatives, that should not form the basis for an atheistic viewpoint. If that were so then that is as foolish (as most atheists will say of theists) as basing one’s belief in God on one’s positive experiences and asking people to believe in God based on that. What’s needed is genuine scrutiny of the manuscripts that are available where the basis for the religions in question are formed.

It is my belief that a lot of atheistic positions are based on a reaction to bad theology but because they simply have no basis for believing in a God they never venture to check it out any further themselves. Sad really as there are a lot of really intelligent atheists what allow bad theology spouters (so called theologians) to put them off the subject entirely. I don’t blame some atheists who hate religion sometimes, they were never given any kind of solid foundation to build from. But there are some equally ignorant atheists who place the truth of all things in how they perceive it to be and if God is not there in their limited capacity to see Him then He doesn’t exist.

Wicknight wrote: »

So to answer you question, I can't "prove" God doesn't exist, any more than the rest of my family could prove to my aunt that my grandmother was going to die. In fact it probably wouldn't matter even if they could. "Proof", true honest to Allah proof, exists only in mathematical circles. We can't know anything for certain, and we can convince others of certainty even less.

If mathematics is what you view as the only and ultimate truth in the universe then how did such an “infallible” truth come to be? And how do you reconcile that view with what you said in an earlier post that “belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.”

Wicknight wrote: »

The universe unfortunately doesn't care either way. Things happen, or they don't happen. There is nothing out there looking out for us. There is nothing that will make sure the positive outcome will happen over the negative outcome.

Again you’re basing your belief on your negative experiences. Or so it seems anyway.

Wicknight wrote: »

I hope that in some way answers your question.

Yes it does thank you for talking the time to do so.


P.S I've just noticed you other replies. Will read and get back as soon as...

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that cannot apply to the Old Testament Israelites. They claimed an outside source was directing their lives. If they had invented Jehovah why would they not pronounce His name verbally? It was claimed that God said to Moses by the name Jehovah you shall know me which meant it was a name they could utter with their lips. But they threw it back into obscurity by believing it to be too holy to utter. That is not consistent with someone deliberately creating a deity to please themselves.

Well as I said, "padding," the constructs humans use to make these highly unlikely things seem likely.

Humans have to believe that these things are rational. If God exists, and we need to please him, and he is holy, would it not be logical to not mention his name out loud. We don't, after all want to anger him.

For example, if my aunt really wanted my grand mother to be better, why did she not simply convince herself that she no longer was sick at all? Well obviously because the rational side of her brain would simply over rule that as being ridiculous. She was in hospital hooked up to machines struggling to breath.

Instead my aunt latched on to the far more plausible idea that she was slowly getting better. She could rationalise that, it became the padding around the belief in the positive outcome, that things would eventually get better.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If they invented their God why would they introduce this law which they broke continually?

Because humans are like that.

Though I must say you are talking about this as if a council of elders got around in a room one day and decided to invent a god to make themselves all feel better.

If I implied that is what happened I apologise.

How modern religions and modern superstitions arise gives us clues how the older ones did. And it is one big case of Chinese whispers. These ideas evolve, often slowly, and are passed on and change and morph into new ideas. They are generally not controlled by one group of people who decide a strict uniform series of rules. Even Christianity evolved. Compare what Catholics believe now to what 1st century Christians believed.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It doesn’t make sense that they would invent laws like this if they weren’t prepared to obey them.

Why not?

Scientology is a completely made up religion. Some scientologists are stricter than others. L. Ron. Hubbard didn't follow any of his doctrine, probably because he knew he was making it up.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Ark was made of acacia wood and gold the two natures of Christ man (acacia wood) and God (Gold).

Well you could say that about anything. If the ark had been made out of tinfoil and bamboo you could say one represents God and one Christ.

You are fitting the event around the interpretation that you want it to mean.

Soul Winner wrote: »

These stories are written as an historical record of the events that took place. They were not written down as fables in order to tickle the religious urge.

I didn't claim they were.

The early Christians believed very strongly in their religion, and as you say there is strong historical evidence of this. But then so do most religious people. Muslim fundamentalists are prepared to blow themselves up for the promise of a better world in heaven. New age cults commit mass suicides for the promise of a better life on a star.

People will do almost anything for this positive out come that they grave, even die or kill. In fact the more they are willing the more they convince themselves that it must be true. I must be true because otherwise I wouldn't be willing to die. It must be true because otherwise I wouldn't be willing to kill.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Forgive me for saying but you’re very limited understanding and knowledge of religion is not a good focus meter to adjudge things you’ve obviously never studied in dept.

Well no offence Soul but I think you are deliberately ignore my point.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The personal circumstances you describe with your Aunt and Grandmother are sad in the natural but nowhere in scripture does it say these things will not happen to you as some point in your life.

Again that isn't my point, and I find it difficult to believe you honestly though that was my point.

I am not saying my aunt believe Christianity would save my grandmother. My aunt didn't believe anything specific would. But she believe that it simply would be ok in the end. She didn't know how or why (or at least didn't explain that to us), but she believe it would be simply because to her it must be ok in the end. The alternative was not worth considering.

Take the early Christian thrown to the lions. He or she must believe in an after life and in a God that will provide this after life. This need for that to be true over rides even the most basic fear of death. They can either die, and go to heaven, or renounce God, renounce their belief, and cease to exist after they die. To them that would hardly even be an option.

People are so afraid of the idea that the positive outcome will not happen that they will do almost anything to convince themselves that it will, even dying.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If what happened to you personally is proof that there is no God

Again you are, either on purpose or simply by not following my post, missing the point.

The point isn't that because a bad thing happened to my grandmother this demonstrates there is no God.

The point is that because a bad thing was happening to my grandmother my aunt was so afraid of the negative outcome that she convinced herself, in all honesty, that my grandmother would pull through. She convinced herself of the positive outcome, not matter how it happened, would be the outcome.

If my aunt can do that, can forsake all rationality and reality, because she must believe something is true, it is not hard to see how humans could and would develop something like religion to do the same for all of the fears of human existence.

My aunt didn't sit around thinking "How can I invent some belief that my mother will live", and nor do I believe that religion was invented in this deliberate self-conscious manner. She did it self consciously, through interpretation of things and false rational of other things. My grand mother has turned one morning. That must be a sign she is able to move better. that must mean she is improving. She must be getting better. In fact it must be a dramatic change. She must be really improving.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just because one gets disillusioned with life’s negatives, that should not form the basis for an atheistic viewpoint.

It doesn't. It forms the basis of the religious point of view.

Humans create (subconsciously) these delusions of religion to help them cope with the uncopable, to help them deal with what they simply can't deal with.

My aunt simply could not deal with the idea my grandmother would die. So she created a version of reality where it was clear my grandmother was getting better and would pull through.

The positive outcome was more important than the rational assessment of what was actually happening.

The idea of a all powerful, all loving God makes the uncaring, indifferent, world around us bearable for a lot of people. The idea that we simply exist, that we will all of us die and not exist, is simply too much for a lot of people to accept. So we create a different version of reality, a version of reality where we in fact are loved from on high, where we will in fact have eternal life, where we will be rewarded for our struggles, for our devotion.

We turn the uncaring, indifferent universe into a universe that does care, that holds us special.

And to rationalise this, to make it fit with the side of our brain that is cautious of too good a thing, we create religion, the rules and dogma of religion, to put constructs around this belief.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What’s needed is genuine scrutiny of the manuscripts that are available where the basis for the religions in question are formed.

Well the manuscripts are largely irrelevant. If you didn't follow this religion you would simply follow another one. If you were born 5,000 years ago you would follow a religion of the day, and if you were born 5,000 years in the future you would follow that religion.

All religions offer pretty much the exact same thing, the promise of a positive outcome to the things we have trouble facing. Are you lonely, do you feel something missing in your life? Religion is the answer. Which religion? It doesn't really matter? Are you scared of death, scared of the idea of not existing? Religion has the answer. Which religion? Doesn't really matter.

They all provide the same solutions to the same problems.

You simply need to follow the doctrine of the religion and you will be reward for doing so. The problems you fear will be solved, the outcome you wish will be granted.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is my belief that a lot of atheistic positions are based on a reaction to bad theology but because they simply have no basis for believing in a God they never venture to check it out any further themselves.

Well that may be the case for some, I can't say.

It isn't for me. The more I learn about religion, including yours, the less likely I think that it is possible that it is actually true in what it claims.

When one sees that all religions pretty much offer the exact same thing while expecting the exact same thing its hard to see them as plausible in what they claim.

You naturally believe that your particular religion is some how the exception to the rule. But again you believe that because you want it to be true. The alternative is that no religion is true, that nothing will prove you with the positive out come you want. Which is I imagine a situation you simply cannot consider.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If mathematics is what you view as the only and ultimate truth in the universe then how did such an “infallible” truth come to be?

Well mathematical proofs are constructed by humans. They don't exist anywhere but the rules of mathematics.

For example a + b = b + a can be "proven" to be true, but only true in the sense of the rules of mathematics as already established by us.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And how do you reconcile that view with what you said in an earlier post that “belief in infallible ideas is dangerous.”

Well I didn't really mean mathematical ideas, as there are not many consequences of people refusing to accept the correctness of maths solution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Again you’re basing your belief on your negative experiences. Or so it seems anyway.

Well I'm basing (some) my believes on how I see humans, and how I see how they work when attempting to deal with difficult things.

More accurately I guess you could say I'm basing it on how I saw my aunt, and others who have gone through similar things, deal with their negative experiences. How it was possible for them, rational intelligent people, to create a version of reality that while providing them with the outcome they needed, had little resemblance to the real world.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that a lot of our emotions that we us to form moral systems, such as guilt, empathy, love, companionship etc have evolutionary justification.

Ok can you show me how evolutionary biology demonstrates this please?

Wicknight wrote: »

But these emotions have been coupled with our higher intelligence, and as such only form a foundation for the far more complex moral systems humans can develop.

Why are humans the only species to have evolved God Worship? Why do we never see animals of any sort building shrines and altars? If evolution and natural selection (survival of the fittest) are true then what are the survival benefits in worshipping something that doesn’t exist?

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it can be dangerous to those who don't accept it as infallible.

But only if it is in fact infallible. If the idea is not infallible then the idea itself cannot be dangerous.

Wicknight wrote: »

So I'm not solely picking on religion, look at the idea in Chinese Communism that religion is damaging to society and should be routed out from all areas of the country, often with force if necessary.

Is this idea infallible? Those who follow it certain appear to believe so. They have been taught that Mao's ideas are perfect and that they cannot be challenged.

So it becomes less of a question of that I believe this idea is wrong, but more of an idea that they cannot accept that it is possible that this idea is wrong.

A religious example would be the idea that God can only do good, therefore anything that a religious person believes is done under the direction of God is moral, no matter what it is. Again it is not only that I believe this idea is wrong, but that those who believe it refuse to accept that it might be wrong. Which leads to people justifying everything from Sept 11, to the genocide in the Old Testament, simply because they believe absolutely in a perfect God that cannot do wrong.

I do not blindly accept that what God does is right or wrong. All I’m trying to get across is this; If God does in fact exist then what He says is right IS right whether I accept it or not. If He exists at all it is not based on whether I believe in Him or not. I do believe in Him but that is not the criteria for His existence. If He is then He is. If people want to rationalise their actions by their belief in God then so be it but that to is not what makes Him exist. You refer to genocide in the Old Testament a lot. Can you point out to me what genocide you are referring to please? I would like to take a look at it and talk about it for a bit.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually it wouldn't.

Consider for example that he was actually Satan. How would you tell?

Ok so lets assume that Jesus lived and walked ordinary streets and did the things ascribed to Him in the New Testament texts. Then we can take your hypothesis from these texts directly. In these very texts this issue arises. The Scribes and Pharisees (the most educated men of their day) reasoned amongst themselves in relation to Jesus. They reasoned that He (Jesus) could not do the things that He was doing save God be with Him. Then later on in the texts it says that they say Jesus does these things by the power of the devil. To which Jesus replied can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself how can it stand? So it really boils down to whether you believe He is of the devil or not. So can you say hand on heart that Jesus did the things (Heal the sick, raise the dead, feed the hungry) He did and say the things He said (preached the Kingdom of God) by the power of the Satan?

Wicknight wrote: »

If the supernatural is possible then we actually lose all ability to determine anything.

How so?

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus could be the Son of God. Or he could have been Satan pretending to be the Son of God. Or Satan might actually be God, and God might actually be an angel pretending to be God.

Assuming they all do exist then that could be so but it’s a nonsensical argument. You could be the poster PDN disguised as Wicknight. How do I know you’re not PDN? I don’t actually know you’re not but I am convinced you are in fact Wicknight and not PDN without having to actually know. I don’t actually know Jesus wasn’t Satan but I am absolutely convinced that He wasn’t.

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you can say that you don't accept that, or don't believe that. But that judgment is based not on rational assessment but more on how you think it should be. God should be good and Satan should be bad. God shouldn't do bad things. Jesus did good things, he should be God. Satan should only do bad things.

Assuming all these entities do in fact exist then “Should” is irrelevant. If God is then He does not have to be good in order to be. God just is good. Jesus did not have to come and do what He did; He simply chose to come and do it. Satan did not have to be bad he just chose not to go along with the program and was thus cast out. He cannot be good even if he wanted to be, he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. This is how it is revealed to us and we either accept it or we don’t. You can’t go back and change the revelation otherwise you would have to change your whole opinion of it yourself.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this goes back to the "padding" I discussed in the previous post. You believe these things because you have already created a narrative to provide the positive outcome you want to be true.

The padding? How has this padding all of a sudden got a foot hold on proceedings here? If it is to have a foothold then please define and explain this padding to me in more detail and explain how exactly it is formed in our minds and how it explains away the worlds religions? I did not create the narrative. It was there before I was born. If I wanted to create a narrative then I would not have created the lake of fire in the narrative because in the natural I don’t want anyone to go there, but it is there in the narrative and the narrative states that some will go there and I must accept it or not accept it, but don’t say I created it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Very few modern theists consider the idea of a God that can do bad as well as good things, because such a God doesn't fit into the narrative that provides the positive outcome they want. This appears to be a modern-ish phenomena, the older religions had little trouble with a God, or gods, that did bad as well as good, probably because moral concepts like that were less well defined than in modern culture.

Then that is a problem for modern theists. I consider myself a modern theist in that I’m alive now (modern) and I believe in God (theist) and I do not accept that God can only do good things. He can do plenty of what we consider bad things as well. If there are modern theists out there who don’t believe God can do bad things then do they believe the story that He flooded the earth? Do they believe the story that He knocked Eli off the log and broke his neck, and story of when He made the earth open up and swallow Korah, and the one where He turned Lot’s wife to a pillar of salt and when He destroyed the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. Pretty nasty things wouldn’t you agree? Modern theists who do not accept these stories just don’t believe God’s Word. If all we are out for in religion is the positive outcome then how come these stories are included in the “narrative”.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can say that about any religion. Want to be shown the Scientology is real? Read Dianetics. What do be shown that Islam is real? Read the Qu'ran. Want to be shown that Hindu is real? Read the Vendas.

But none of the founders of these Religions ever centred everything in themselves. In Islam there is one God Allah and Mohamed is his prophet. Budhah said that he meant nothing that all he could leave is the way he followed, which said way he called the eight fold path. Jesus comes preaching Himself. He said ”I am the way the truth and the life” and “By me shall any man enter in” and gives no basis except He says it. He had no sense of moral inadequacy. He never said “The Lord forgive you” He said “Thy sins be forgiven” He said in the garden: “Father I’ve done all that you sent me to do, now restore me to the glory I once had with you” Glory He once had? Is he for real? Like I said Jesus is different from all other respected founders of religion because he cantered everything in himself. The only thing that can validate His claims is the fulfilment in reality of the claim He also made that He would rise from the grave on the third day. If He did not rise as reported then He is nothing. Not to be respect as good or wise or supernatural. But if He did then He was who He claimed to be and we must deal with Him.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't prove that any of those things happened, but you can certainly demonstrate that people believe they did.

Yes, eye witness testimony is all we have to go on. Jesus said it is more blessed to believe without seeing than it is to believe from seeing. So to get a basis for a belief in Jesus as supernatural we must scrutinise the eye witness testimony. So, where the Disciples who told the story liars or was what they actually reported true? This is a long and lengthy process and one in which I could go into in more detail if you like but here’s just one of many examples which make them at least sound honest. Take Mark’s Gospel which most scholars concede was written to either Romans or Egyptians but certainly to non Jews. In Mark’s gospel he (Mark) has Jesus when preaching to Jews during in His earthly ministry referring to Himself (Jesus) as the Son of Man. So if Mark is a liar and knows he is a liar and is trying to convince non Jews that Jesus was the Son of God, why does he hurt his story by having Jesus always referring to Himself in his Gospel as the Son of Man? To a non Jew the phrase Son of Man simply means he was just like them, a son of a man. Because when Jesus was preaching He was in a Jewish environment where they understood that the phrase “Son of Man” conveyed the Messianic picture as portrayed in Hebrew Eschatological writings as “The” Son of Man coming to set up His Kingdom as Messiah. This is not consistent with a liar. There is a heck of a lot of this kind of intrinsic evidence in the all the Gospels so I’ll just give one more example. Before Jesus performs the miracle of feeding the five thousand one of the records has Him asking Phillip where to buy bread. Another Gospel states that Phillip was from Bethsaida and it is in yet another Gospel that puts the geographic area where this miracle was perform in Bethsaida. Put them altogether and it make sense. Phillip was the right person to ask because they were in an area that he knew well so if there was anywhere they could buy bread then he would know. So here are three different Gospels written by different people at different times in different places probably at a time when they didn’t know if the others were alive or not. If they are liars (and they know they are liars) and all they are doing is trying to save face for the moment by making up a stupid story then why the accuracy in the reports? If they are in fact lying then they don’t know that what they are saying is going to be scrutinised throughout the centuries. All they are doing is saving face for the moment or whatever and making up a lie. You don’t find that attention to detail in a liar who is out to tell a big one like this. Like I said there a many more examples of this kind if evidence which tips the scale more to truth tellers than liars.

Wicknight wrote: »

There have actually been tons of religion where the leader is claimed to have risen from the dead, and all of them had or have followers. There is little unique about Jesus in this regard, nor that his followers believed it happened.

I challenge you to provide for me just 1 example out of the tons you are referring to of founding religious leaders who (before they actually died) claimed they were going to rise form the dead and then show me the record and testimony of the eye witnesses to that event. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead in and of itself is not that impressive its that it is the one who claimed He was going to before He died and the One who said all the other things He said who rose. That’s the amazing thing. If this happened then this gives validity to all the other claims He made. You can go around claiming things no mortal man has a right to claim all you like but you die and rise again on the third day as you predicted then I will take another look at the other things you said. If you were eye witness to these events you’d believe pretty fast the other things He said about Himself wouldn’t you?

Wicknight wrote: »

Now I know you won't accept this, but again it is because you want it to be true. You rationalize that Jesus must have risen from the dead in the same way my aunt rationalized that my grand mother was getting much better.

I think from the above illustrations that you can put to rest the notion that I rationalize Jesus rising from the dead like the way your Aunt rationalized that your grandmother was getting better. There is at least a slight difference don’t you think?

Wicknight wrote: »

If my aunt had been looked at a woman she didn't know who was in the same condition as my grand mother I seriously doubt she would have believed she was getting better.

You are conjuring up (forgive me) ridiculous nonsensical arguments to support your position. I cannot accept them on face value alone. They are feeble at best.

Wicknight wrote: »

People following supernatural deities doesn't in anyway suggest that the supernatural deities are real.

I never said it did.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well it is more like someone in their 20s saying one thing and then in their 50s saying something contradictory.

So are you conceding that there was only one author of both Testaments?

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that God doesn't age and isn't supposed to change positions or view points.

Well if the New Testament is true then God does change His mind on certain things because He could not put away the Old Covenant without first fulfilling it. In the Old Testament He wanted to kill all the Israelites and start over afresh with Moses. Moses pleaded with Him to be merciful to them and He repented of the evil He was going to do to them.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well actually that is very wishy washy.

So are most of your arguments if you ask me.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, what does he actually mean by "not all"? Are you supposed to forsake everything? Your house, your clothes, your money, your job, your family, your friends, your wife?

Most Christians would say no. But on what basis do they say that. A judgment based on something else no doubt

You’re not supposed to do anything, it’s just a statement. If you want to be His disciple then you must be willing at least to count everything else in your life as loss. It is an attitudinal thing. He also said that no one has forsaken without receiving a hundred fold what was forsaken. Most translate this into forsaking in order to gain but that is not true forsaking. It is an axiomatic happening. He says you live by dying, receive by giving and so on, all axiomatic happenings, self evident truths. The attitude is supposed to be one of trust in another to provide all your needs instead of relying on your own ability to do it.
.

Wicknight wrote: »

All religious morality is just human morality (from an atheist perspective). We (humans) made it all up based on our own moral compass. Which is why you don't find anything in any human religion that is a spectacular moral announcement. There isn't a single moral teaching in the Bible that isn't found in countless other sources from other cultures and societies.

If that’s true then tell me what other religions hold to the belief that if you lust in your heart after another woman then you are as guilty as an adulterer? In Jesus’ eyes you are guilty, not in any other religion would you be deemed so.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"[/i]

Does that mean Christians should never go to war? Christians interpret that in vastly different ways. Some say yes, some say no. They end up doing what they probably would have done anyway.

Christian nations like America, England, France and so on go to earthly war for political and earthly reasons. The wars themselves might have some sort of religious overtone to them, but if religions stuck to religion then they need not go to war with each other in this way. Once you step into that world you leave your primary reason for being purpose. And the primary reason for being purpose of the Church is to proclaim the Good News of Christ to the World and this in itself is a war because Satan as the enemy of God has apposed this purpose throughout History. The only war the Church should be involved in is God’s war with the Devil. This war has been raging for eons and the true Church (the people of faith who belong to the Lord) are but foot soldiers.

Wicknight wrote: »

Are we omniscent beings that exist outside of space and time with the power to create and manipulate universes at will?

No, in His image does not mean we have all his characteristics just some of them. Maybe before the fall we had more than we have now but at no time did we have all otherwise the tree in the garden would not have been put there. It was put there as God’s right to say no. He was still the boss, they were given dominion over everything else and they blew it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually. Remember all this is supposed to be evidence that he does exist. The Bible is supposed to be so perfect that we can't help but conclude that it is inspired by God. You can't use the proposition that God already exists to excuse issues in the Bible itself. If you do you have to first explain a reason for believing in God that doesn't include the Bible.

Well Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believed in God before there was ever a Bible. So did Moses for that matter. In fact a long time passed before a reference point for God in a collection of books was first formed. People believe in God long before that so the Bible itself does not limit God’s options on how to reveal His will to anyone. It’s a record of God’s dealings with His people in the Old Testament which looked forward to a Messiah that was going to come which then culminated in Christ and by so doing brought into existence the record of Christ first coming and prophesying of second coming what we call the New Testament.

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem is that religion claims to actually, 100% certain, know things. As in this isn't wrong because God cannot be wrong.

What religion are you talking about? Huston Smith put it this way in his book ‘Why Religion Matters’: “Science has the big answers to small questions and Religion has the small answers to the big questions” If Christ was who He claimed Himself to be then He is the answer to all questions but we cannot know that on this side of eternity for two reasons, one because we are not adequately equipped to know or understand it and two because that’s the way He set it up. We must finish our course down here first. Think of it as a training ground. When you cross over to the other side you have graduated.

Wicknight wrote: »

Science has a clause in it called "falsifiability"

What this means is that it must be logically possible to demonstrate that a scientific theory, any scientific theory, is wrong. If it is impossible to demonstrate a scientific theory is wrong then it is not a scientific theory (which is one of the reasons why science ignores God in its theories)

The reason this is in science is because of the realization from science pilosophy that is it impossible to know something for certain. What ever we think we know may in fact be wrong, because we lack the ability in this universe to demonstrate beyond all doubt that something is absolutely correct.

This is a philosophy absent form religion. In fact the point of religion is the exact opposite, that being able to say for certain that something is true.

“Falsifiability” I like that word. Maybe it cannot be ascertained from a human point of view to substantiate the existence of a supernatural all powerful being by mere observational and analytical means but that is not what the Bible does. The Bible just declares things, which said things are either true or they are not true. It does not start out by saying: “It is our belief that in the beginning a God who calls Himself Jehovah created the Heaven and the Earth” it just declares that “In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” The Bible is not a scientific document, it’s a record of events that took place in times gone by. Events that pertain to a particular people. It never asks to be believed in, it just states things and you either accept them or don’t accept them.

Wicknight wrote: »

But Soul Winner that is up there with the classic though experiment of the liar who claims he is not lying. How do you tell if he if what he is saying is true or not.

This goes back to what I said earlier, you believe God must be just because that fits into the narrative that you want to be true, because you want the positive out come.

The idea of an unjust God simply does not fit into that narrative. A unjust God would not guarantee the positive out come that you need to be true, so you dismiss it as simply be not something to consider.

You attempt to rationalize this as part of the padding but the rational is cyclical reasoning (the worst kind) because I seriously doubt you are basing this conclusion on reason.


But you have no reason to believe that if God exists he must be just. That is simply a assumption you are making (see above) because you want it to be true.

I think I dealt with this already above.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you say that God reveals himself to be good through the Bible, that contradicts the statement that human standards of "good" are irrelevant for God.

How?

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, how do you know that God isn't actually Satan pretending to be God for some unknown yet evil scheme

Like I said earlier, I don’t know but am convinced that this is not true. Numbers 23:19 says “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” If it turns out that God is indeed Satan then it was Satan all along that was the liar. If Satan is God then the same is true but as already pointed out this is just stupid reasoning, not even cyclical. You can never understand anything about the Bible if you argue like this. What it sounds like is somebody who knows he will never accept the Bible no matter what is explained about it. You have your position on it and that is that. You are not willing to let facts shape your opinion, you just assume your way of thinking is right and refuse to be challenged on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

But you have already said that what ever God does must be good. So even if God does something that we might consider bad, that is still good because it is God. But what if God is actually Satan pretending. Then Satan does something bad. You can't judge if this is actually bad or not, because you are working on the grounds that what ever he does is good.

I never said that what ever God does must be (you even italicized the words I didn’t actually use) good. I never said that sorry. I said if God is then what is says is right IS right. If He is the alpha and omega as claimed in the Bible then He IS the criteria for what is right. Not anything He sub sequentially creates down the line.

Wicknight wrote: »

Satan could be pretending to be God and you could never tell, because you have already established that what ever God does must be good. You on the one hand say that you judgment can determine God is God, yet at the same time say that your judgment is completely incapable of assessing God.

You must be reading someone else’s posts because I never said anything like that at all. What I suggest you do is actually read back over what I said then come back with arguments against them, not against things I never actually said. No wonder I do be confused when I read your posts. You assume I’m saying things and then argue against that instead of what I’m actually saying.

BrianCalgary

Conar wrote: »

Well allowing faith to override the need for proof is in my opinion the greatest cop out of all time.

There is loads of proof, it is called the Bible. The Bible reports on events that happened. There are no writings to dispute thoses events. We also see live changed completely after the acceptance of Christ. there is loads of proof besides 'feelings".

Conar wrote: »

Have you seen the living God in the life of Jesus, or to whom are you referring when you say we?
There are so many people that "experience" paranormal activities on a daily basis but until I see proof of it then I will continue to believe they are either delusional or simply reading to much into events.

Then go beyond the feelings and examine the changed lives. Ask people how their lives have changed since accepting Christ.

So you say there is no god?

Now I'll wait to hear your well reasoned proof for this position?

Conar wrote: »

As nice as it must have been to have caught someone off guard in an argument, I don't see how your little anecdote has any bearing on anything.
What does his lack of response prove?

The lack of response prooves how idiotic a statemnet it was. He stated 'there is not God'. I simply asked for his proof, how he came to determine that there was no God. Then came the very answer that every atheist gives, you can't prove there is one, so therefore there has to be none.

Absolutely brilliant isn't it, make a statement then absolve yourself of any responsibility in proving that your statemnt is true?

Conar wrote: »

It is up to the police to prove a crime was committed, not up to a suspect to prove it wasn't. If I told you that I could pause time would it be up to you to prove I can't etc etc..

It is both. A suspect can prove it didn't happen by being able to disassociate himself from the events, ie, being somewhere else at the time.

It happens frequently, the defendant shows how they couldn't have commited the crime.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

As steve says, just because you think there's something out there, doesn't mean there actually is..

I agree, but that is not the whole story robin and you know it.

robindch wrote: »

Lots of muslims feel the presence of Allah in their lives, lost of hindus talk about the reality of Ganesh and Ram and it's pretty much the same for all the other believers and gods. By implication from your line "There are so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives", you've "shown" (to your standards) that all the other gods must exist too, including all the ones which are just as omnipotent, omniscient and unique as your god.

As I said, it's lousy reasoning, and it leads to a completely unjustified conclusion.

Of course the other gods exist, I never said they didn't. What are the results of a belief in those gods?

Along with knwoing and understanding the presence of God, you see the transformed lives, there are results that go along with the 'feelings'.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I agree, but that is not the whole story robin and you know it.

I never said that that was the whole story Rather, I was simply pointing out that saying "so many people that experience the living God in their daily lives" does not prove that god exists, any more than people experiencing Allah in their daily lives proves that Allah exists, or that my belief that I'm going to win on the 5:40 at Doncaster means that I will. Belief does not equal reality, especially in a belief system which actually requires and applauds the suspension of disbelief -- does this ever make you suspicious?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Of course the other gods exist, I never said they didn't.

So, Allah exists, and like the christian god, is also the sole creator of the universe? And all the Greek Primordial Gods exist too, and they also created the universe? I must say that I don't quite understand your point of view here. Can you explain in a bit more detail?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

What are the results of a belief in those gods?

Pretty much identical to the results of belief in the various versions of the christian deity.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Along with knwoing and understanding the presence of God, you see the transformed lives, there are results that go along with the 'feelings'.

You seem to be missing the point here (see your first response above). I]Something[/I and I]belief in something[/I are different things and simply because a belief in something produces an effect, doesn't mean that the belief reflects reality. Take a look at the paranoid conspiracy forum and the "transformed lives" there, and tell me if all of their beliefs reflect the real world.