WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Dades

WooPeeA wrote: »

Nope, because we have evidences for above. Existence of dragons was negated by science (however depend on what "dragon" means to you).

WooPeeA wrote: »

But if we don't have ANY evidences for something it's still 50/50. You cannot make any of the yes or no side more rational having no evidences at all to prove it.

How come we can use science to negate the existence of dragons, but not gods?

Science cannot prove that something does not, or never existed - especially something 'magical' like dragons OR deities.

Drop your shovel - your 50/50 contention is just wrong.

Goduznt Xzst

WooPeeA wrote: »

Existence of dragons was negated by science

what about invisible dragons? science hasn't "negated" those. Therefore there is a 50/50 chance that they exist. Also, in a dream, one of them spoke to me and said that everyone who whistles for 10 minutes everyday starting at 12am will live in a marshmallow castle when they die.

Using the logic of pascals wager, i'd start your daily whistling now, what have you got to lose?

WooPeeA

Depend how do you consider a "God". If you consider it as a old man with silver hair and big beard, probably chances of his existence are close to zero. The thing is you don't know what to expect, so how can you deny it.

It's like saying that there's no intelligent life on other planets. You cannot say there is one, or there is not, because there's no evidences for that. If you say so, it's because you think you have an answer for that question, but you don't.

The only evidence we have to support where we came from is a logic, and the logic says we don't know.

Dades

I think you've sidestepped the 50/50 point, which was the one that bothered people.

WooPeeA wrote: »

It's like saying that there's no intelligent life on other planets. You cannot say there is one, or there is not, because there's no evidences for that. If you say so, it's because you think you have an answer for that question, but you don't.

Regarding intelligent life, the probability is less 50/50, and more this:

WooPeeA

Dades wrote: »

I think you've sidestepped the 50/50 point, which was the one that bothered people.

Regarding intelligent life, the probability is less 50/50, and more this:

According to the theory that the Universe is infinity endless, there is infinity chance that there is not only intelligent life but also infinity number of lives like that.

Theories of different scientists exclude each other very often, like the theory that universe is endless and the theory that says it's getting bigger. Which make it even worst, many of the theories seem to be equally possible.

50/50 as I mentioned in one of the posts is a diplomatic answer. Means the same as "I don't believe anyone who don't have any evidences".

Edit:
or "I accept all answers as long as one of the sides won't prove that the opposite side is wrong and they are right."

Húrin

Wibbs wrote: »

If a God did exist it's "mind" for want of a better word would be so distant to our own and our viewpoint of reality and purpose, to argue about how it would think and what it would want is largely a dead end. Indeed that would be a major issue I would have with religion itself.

Yes, but the mind of God would be fully capable of comprehending ours, and could understand how to frame its will in our terms, and how to communicate such to us if it saw fit. This communication could take the form of the revelation claimed by religions, or could be in the form of the moral conscience that some argue is built into every human by God.

Húrin

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I might as well say it now, does your answer actually prove that there is no God? If not, then why hold so fast to such unstable ground? Pascal's wager puts forth that the following: That between the possibility of whether there is or is not a God there is even odds. i.e. 1/1 for belief and 1/1 against belief. But it makes much better sense to believe in God than not. Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything. And if there is a God and you bet that there is then you gain everything.

SW, don't you see that Pascal's Wager is not Christian? Merely believing in God will not cause you to gain everything. Even the demons believe there is one God - and shudder.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

Strangely enough, isn't that what all atheists believe?

Is that what makes it clichéd?

It's an oft-repeated one. I wonder how many of those 2500 Gods claimed to be universal to all people? How many even claimed to be the creator of the universe? How many claimed to be morally perfect? How many claim that humans can relate to them? The questions just go on.

Valmont

Wibbs wrote: »

I am suggesting that a sense of higher power/god/spirit is inherent in our brain biology structure. There have been enough experiments done where people are subjected to strong magnetic fields on certain parts of the brain that can cause an "enlightenment" sense, an out of body experience, a feeling of a sense of oneness with the universe a sense of there being "something else".

Are you sure you aren't confusing Magnetic field experimentation with LSD?

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

It's an oft-repeated one. I wonder how many of those 2500 Gods claimed to be universal to all people? How many even claimed to be the creator of the universe? How many claimed to be morally perfect? How many claim that humans can relate to them? The questions just go on.

Your god claims none of these things. Men claim them on its behalf. And besides, why do fantastical claims make you god somehow more likely to be real?

MrP

Flamed Diving

Húrin wrote: »

It's an oft-repeated one. I wonder how many of those 2500 Gods claimed to be universal to all people? How many even claimed to be the creator of the universe? How many claimed to be morally perfect? How many claim that humans can relate to them? The questions just go on.

What utter, utter nonsense.

IHATELIBERTAS

nothing, just couldnt give a toss tbh. although the antics of the church to disgust me

Húrin

MrPudding wrote: »

Why do fantastical claims make your god somehow more likely to be real?

I don't see how a god who does not claim these things can claim to be a god at all, or have relevance to my life. I didn't say it makes my God the one true God. After all, several competing Gods still survive this series of questions (unfortunately "Juju" doesn't). It does narrow down the odds significantly though.

UU wrote: »

Say if Nordic beliefs was the major world religion and Christianity/Judaism was considered some ancient mythology, wouldn't we be here saying that Nordicism is more true than Judaism/Christianity?

That would be impossible. Nordic religion did not claim to be the true universal faith for all mankind. Christianity claims exactly that.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

It's an oft-repeated one. I wonder how many of those 2500 Gods claimed to be universal to all people? How many even claimed to be the creator of the universe? How many claimed to be morally perfect? How many claim that humans can relate to them? The questions just go on.

Lets face it Húrin, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with it. You are dictating what the signs for the true God are by the characteristics of your own God, it's an illogical loop.

i.e.

Me: How can you be sure your God is not lying and is the true God?
You: I know he is by the qualities he has!
Me: Who set the qualities of the true God?
You: God did!
Me: How can you be sure your God is not lying and is the true God?
...

You see what I mean. It is a stupid and illogical presupposition.

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

I don't see how a god who does not claim these things can claim to be a god at all, or have relevance to my life.

OK, so you like your gods to be egotistical and self important. Got it.

MrP

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Lets face it Húrin, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with it. You are dictating what the signs for the true God are by the characteristics of your own God, it's an illogical loop.

In Hurin's defense he was addressing the idea that there are thousands of gods he's ignoring, by suggesting that there are few that actually claim to be the creator of Everything.

So less dictating the signs of a true god, and more the idea that there are very few making that particular claim. If that makes sense. Which I'm not at all sure about either way.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

That would be impossible. Nordic religion did not claim to be the true universal faith for all mankind. Christianity claims exactly that.

That is a joke right ... ?

The Nordic religion did not claim to be universally true? It just claimed to be what, locally true? You think the Vikings said to everyone else "You guys don't have to believe this, it is only true for us"?

Seriously, you are joking right?

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

In Hurin's defense he was addressing the idea that there are thousands of gods he's ignoring, by suggesting that there are few that actually claim to be the creator of Everything.

So less dictating the signs of a true god, and more the idea that there are very few making that particular claim. If that makes sense. Which I'm not at all sure about either way.

Exactly there is no such thing as the true god. There are just peoples needs and desires. As the scope of the people change so does the scope of their god. Thats just me looking at it simply.

Hùrin I'm pretty sure there are many gods that claim to be the creator of the universe across the world if not religions. I think may have just made up one in my head except mine isn't an asshole so technically he doesn't exist because only an asshole could have created this universe.


Ps I'm trying to be funny

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Lets face it Húrin, this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with it. You are dictating what the signs for the true God are by the characteristics of your own God, it's an illogical loop.

Uh no, wrong. This is not where I get my criteria for a credible God.

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, so you like your gods to be egotistical and self important. Got it.

Yes, very much so. But they must be credible. The Greek gods were very egotistical but they demonstrated great immorality and didn't claim to be the authors and arbiters of morality AFAIK. The Greek gods were just humans with super powers.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a joke right ... ?

The Nordic religion did not claim to be universally true? It just claimed to be what, locally true? You think the Vikings said to everyone else "You guys don't have to believe this, it is only true for us"?

Correct. The Nordic religion concerned the people of Scandinavia, not the rest of us. The Vikings did not evangelise it, they just plundered other people and settled their people.

Another problem, though unrelated, that I have with the Nordic religion is its promotion of master morality. But that may be another discussion.

Tim_Murphy

Correct. The Nordic religion concerned the people of Scandinavia, not the rest of us. The Vikings did not evangelise it, they just plundered other people and settled their people.

And this is different from the Old Testament how exactly?

kiffer

Húrin wrote: »

The Vikings did not evangelise it, they just plundered other people and settled their people.

They also traded alot. The rampaging invadeing Norse Viking is a bit of a vilifide stereotype... not that the didn't raid and invade but to say that's all they did is a bit weak.

Húrin

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

And this is different from the Old Testament how exactly?

God to Abraham:

Genesis 12:1-3 wrote:

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.

2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.

3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."

Psalms 86:8-10 wrote:

8 Among the gods there is none like you, O Lord;
no deeds can compare with yours.

9 All the nations you have made
will come and worship before you, O Lord;
they will bring glory to your name.

10 For you are great and do marvelous deeds;
you alone are God.

Amos 1:3-4 wrote:

Judgment on Israel's Neighbors
3 This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Damascus,
even for four, I will not turn back my wrath .
Because she threshed Gilead
with sledges having iron teeth,

4 I will send fire upon the house of Hazael
that will consume the fortresses of Ben-Hadad.

God puts Israel on the same level as the nations that surround it - God expects the same sinlessness of them all.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Uh no, wrong. This is not where I get my criteria for a credible God.

Eh... where do you get it from then? Are you saying there is some list of criteria, external to all religions, that specifies what claims a credible God should make?

Come off it would you. What you've done is looked at the claims of your God then drawn the spurious conclusion that only a credible God would make these claims. Plus it is a moot point, if I was to find a God that made equal claims as Yahweh it would have no affect on your devotion to it. I severely doubt your definition of credibility has any bearing on your faith that your God is the right one.

You are fundamentally wrong because the criteria you have used to choose your God is biased towards the claims made by your God.

It is akin to a Man U fan saying "Man U is the best team in the world", and when asked "How do you know this?", they answer "Because no other teams wear Man U shirts!"

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Eh... where do you get it from then? Are you saying there is some list of criteria, external to all religions, that specifies what claims a credible God should make?

It's not an indisputable list, but yes, they are derived by reason and external to religion. More to to with philosophy. I'll go into detail in a few days.

Come off it would you. What you've done is looked at the claims of your God then drawn the spurious conclusion that only a credible God would make these claims.

I think you should calm down and stop making so many assumptions.

Plus it is a moot point, if I was to find a God that made equal claims as Yahweh it would have no affect on your devotion to it. I severely doubt your definition of credibility has any bearing on your faith that your God is the right one.

I have already said that my criteria does not exclude all Gods except the Christian one. I just said it narrows down the list, which apparently started at 2500 gods.

You are fundamentally wrong because the criteria you have used to choose your God is biased towards the claims made by your God.

I wish that most Christians had your level of zealotry.

It is akin to a Man U fan saying "Man U is the best team in the world", and when asked "How do you know this?", they answer "Because no other teams wear Man U shirts!"

I didn't say that my criteria was used to determine the one true faith. Just to narrow down the list of gods.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

It's not an indisputable list, but yes, they are derived by reason and external to religion. More to to with philosophy. I'll go into detail in a few days.

I wait with bated breath. Specifically to read your list of Gods that fall into this criteria, and how you came to confidently choose Yahweh as the one you found to be the most credible.

hairyheretic

Húrin wrote: »

Correct. The Nordic religion concerned the people of Scandinavia, not the rest of us. The Vikings did not evangelise it, they just plundered other people and settled their people.

Back in those days, pretty much everyone did that. Christianity hardly spread itself across the world through solely preaching peace and understanding, now did it?

Húrin wrote: »

Another problem, though unrelated, that I have with the Nordic religion is its promotion of master morality. But that may be another discussion.

One better suited to the paganism forum perhaps. I'm quite curious as to what you mean by a master morality too.

Húrin

hairyheretic wrote: »

Back in those days, pretty much everyone did that. Christianity hardly spread itself across the world through solely preaching peace and understanding, now did it?

Yes, St Patrick, Columba, et al plundered their swashbuckling way through Europe for Jesus. :rolleyes:

History is never that simple to say "pretty much everyone...". Christianity was spread by both peaceful and violent means (its spread into Scandinavia for instance was violent). My point was that the Norsemen did not spread their religion.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I wait with bated breath. Specifically to read your list of Gods that fall into this criteria, and how you came to confidently choose Yahweh as the one you found to be the most credible.

I hope you chill out in your few days' holiday.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

I hope you chill out in your few days' holiday.

I'm really trying hard to see why you imagine I need to "calm down" or "chill out". If anything your posts give me quite the chuckle on a daily basis, leading me to probably have much lower blood pressure as a result. For that I actually have to thank you Húrin. If you read back over my posts and imagine a smile on my face you'll read them with the correct prosody.

hairyheretic

Húrin wrote: »

Yes, St Patrick, Columba, et al plundered their swashbuckling way through Europe for Jesus. :rolleyes:

History is never that simple to say "pretty much everyone...". Christianity was spread by both peaceful and violent means (its spread into Scandinavia for instance was violent). My point was that the Norsemen did not spread their religion.

Two different points. Perhaps I should have made that more obvious.

I'm quite aware that history is never simple. You seem content to offer an image of bloodthirsty barbarians for viking culture though.

At that point in history, violence was not in short supply, wherever you want to look.

Borneo Fnctn

Somebody simply asked me "Why do you believe in God?"

And then I said "F*ck it you're right. Why should I believe."

I realized that I had been conditioned to bury logical thoughts through fear.