What kind of evidence would prove god ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

Righto is an argument? Not good enough for A&A buddy....better luck next time. :pac:

You obviously weren't reading the "turgid nonsense" I was responding to.

Look after your own - don't worry about your buddies problems.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Righto!

NEXT!!

Stunning argument there old man. I'm guessing you were never on a debating team.

Sorry I can't oblige and say my life is a search for 'meaning' - being alive is enough for me, I don't need anyone's permission to justify it or an excuse for being a miserable sod.

Pity you're not enjoying your ride on life's merry-go-round - you do know that apparently we only get the one go yeah? - although there is no evidence for that either...

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I don't understand your point. Since the existence of any God cannot be proved religions rely on the faith of it's parishoners, that they accept theological teachings and believe them to be true accounts of past events.

Sorry to be so abrupt but you're wading into a discussion already underway.

If wanting to partake then by all means: begin at post 19 in this thread (which renders proof inconveniently relative), then perhaps follow things a bit, then dive in.

Hercule Poirot

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sorry to be so abrupt but you're wading into a discussion already underway.

If wanting to partake then by all means: begin at post 19 in this thread (which renders proof inconveniently relative), then perhaps follow things a bit, then dive in.

*coughs* I'll get my coat

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was merely trying the point out that escapes people might use (cinema) to evade the pressure of their unrighteousness need not always be escapes from the pressure of unrighteousness.

This within the framework of explaining a mechanism that need not be believed in, in order to be understood.

WHAT??? I might equally say (for all the sense you made) that there is a framework for explaining a mechanism that need not be understood, in order to be believed in. It's called religious belief. And that is where we differ, my friend.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Stunning argument there old man. I'm guessing you were never on a debating team.

Listen Bannasidhe: it need not be that all posters can connect with all posters. And whilst I've all the time in the world for a Zombrex or an andrewF20 I find I've about no time for you. No one's fault.

Over and out.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

*coughs* I'll get my coat

No need. Just pick up the context and I'm sure your question will be resolved. Trust me, it's an interesting argument!

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sorry to be so abrupt but you're wading into a discussion already underway.

If wanting to partake then by all means: begin at post 19 in this thread (which renders proof inconveniently relative), then perhaps follow things a bit, then dive in.

Don't go anywhere Hercule - I waded in just before you and I have as much right to an answer as anyone else, yourself included.

antiskeptic - that's crudely put and uncalled for.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

WHAT??? I might equally say (for all the sense you made) that there is a framework for explaining a mechanism that need not be understood, in order to be believed in. It's called religious belief. And that is where we differ, my friend.

We can all say what we like. Whether it's picked up on or not will determine it's survivability. Don't you know..

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

Don't go anywhere Hercule - I waded in just before you and I have as much right to an answer as anyone else, yourself included.

antiskeptic - that's crudely put and uncalled for.

It's called avoiding wandering off topic. Put politely to it's recipient in fact.

You have no right to an answer btw.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't confuse approaching death with conviction of unrighteousness. The former happens us all, the latter is something God brings about in response to our response to our unrighteousness. Evade God's attempt to convict you and you'll die an atheist - horror of approaching death or no.

If you are an example of God's attempt to reach us, I must say I am very underwhelmed. He could have chosen a better spokesperson. You'd think being omnipotent he would have realised employing someone who thinks that 'Next' is an argument is not going to work...

Unless he wants to fail and isn't interested in saving us...

Or - perhaps he doesn't exist and you are the only one here looking for this 'righteousness' you keep harping on about...:eek:

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Listen Bannasidhe: it need not be that all posters can connect with all posters. And whilst I've all the time in the world for a Zombrex or an andrewF20 I find I've about no time for you. No one's fault.

Over and out.

Ewww. That's crudely put and even less called for. What's goin on?

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can all say what we like. Whether it's picked up on or not will determine it's survivability. Don't you know..

Your comment in the context of mine is not survivable. Don't ya know. I just owned that comment

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's called avoiding wandering off topic. Put politely to it's recipient in fact.

You have no right to an answer btw.

Yer alright, I was stating fact, not questioning.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

Ewww. That's crudely put and even less called for. What's goin on?

Some posters construct good arguments. Other posters talk utter ****e. Between those two extremes comes a line in the sand beyond which you find yourself not wanting to expend the effort.

Everyone is entitled to draw that line where they will. You & me both.

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

That's fair enough, but you weren't polite. I'll take a measure of you from that.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Listen Bannasidhe: it need not be that all posters can connect with all posters. And whilst I've all the time in the world for a Zombrex or an andrewF20 I find I've about no time for you. No one's fault.

Over and out.

Oh dear - did I touch a raw nerve when I suggested you may be projecting your own sense of futility on to others?

You poor man, you must be simply desperate for one of us godless ones to break down and weep, wail and gnash our teeth praying for salvation as otherwise what is the point of you deeply believing.

Do you feel we simply cannot be happy unless we have God in our lives? - you have God, and I must say, you don't seem to be having a good time but that's part of the package you've bought into isn't it?

Vale of Tears followed by everlasting Glory - but don't you ever wonder if we are right?

All that endless seeking after salvation could end up just being a life wasted...

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

That's fair enough, but you weren't polite. I'll take a measure of you from that.

Interesting. It's as if you expected a Christian not to sin (when what has a person run to God is the fact of his sin)

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interesting. It's as if you expected a Christian not to sin (when what has a person run to God is the fact of his sin)

I take a measure of you as a person from that - christian or any other faith matters not in the slightest. What matters is how you treat your fellow man.

You brought christian into it. Note the difference please.

"what has a person run to God is the fact of his sin" - I don't understand the corollary between "sin" and "God"? If I consider that I have sinned against my fellow man, it is myself I have to answer to. No god has shown themselves to punish me - I do that very effectively all by myself, thanks very much. If I sin, I subsequently find that I feel for the person I have sinned against. There is no god involved in my making up to that person (or not, and living with the consequence of guilty feelings). That is human, not divine.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

I take a measure of you as a person from that - christian or any other faith matters not in the slightest. What matters is how you treat your fellow man.

Fair enough. It put's me under obligation to represent my God (and yours) well.

"what has a person run to God is the fact of his sin" - I don't understand the corollary between "sin" and "God"? If I consider that I have sinned against my fellow man, it is myself I have to answer to. No god has shown themselves to punish me - I do that very effectively all by myself, thanks very much. If I sin, I subsequently find that I feel for the person I have sinned against. There is no god involved in my making up to that person (or not, and living with the consequence of guilty feelings). That is human, not divine.

The Christian view is that you have a coping mechanism for your sin (or whatever your moral code calls it). But IF:

- there is a God whose moral code far exceeds your own

- AND IF he finds a way to show you that the extent of your sin is far deeper and more serious than your coping mechanism is able to accomodate.

- THEN you've a problem.


Would you not agree?

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. It put's me under obligation to represent my God (and yours) well.

I have no god. To me, you represent a human.

The Christian view is that you have a coping mechanism for your sin (or whatever your moral code calls it). But IF:

- there is a God whose moral code far exceeds your own

- AND IF he finds a way to show you that the extent of your sin is far deeper and more serious than your coping mechanism is able to accomodate.

- THEN you've a problem.


Would you not agree?

Ha, no. I disagree. In fact I find it quite peculiar that you (as a human) are attempting to encourage me (as a human) to believe that there are sins SO SERIOUS that I (as a human) cannot measure them.

My moral code, for what it's worth to you, calls my "coping mechanism" for my sin "trying to do the right thing".

"Trying to do the right thing" is what keeps me in line. The choice to follow that code (because I want to, for other's sake and mine) is my own.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Obliq wrote: »

I have no god.

This may or may not be.

Ha, no. I disagree. In fact I find it quite peculiar that you (as a human) are attempting to encourage me (as a human) to believe that there are sins SO SERIOUS that I (as a human) cannot measure them.

I'm not so much encouraging you to believe as to help you recognise the fact should it come about that you find your own self in this position. Sometimes naming what it is your undergoing helps in it's rectification.

My moral code, for what it's worth to you, calls my "coping mechanism" for my sin "trying to do the right thing".

.which is, incidently, the basis of all world religions. Bar one.

"Trying to do the right thing" is what keeps me in line. The choice to follow that code (because I want to, for other's sake and mine) is my own.

You theorize. You can't actually say for sure where the drive to do the right thing comes from. The conscience, the bible holds, is a God given thing. A still, small voice that says to you what you ought to do. Still that is, until it ramps up (thankfully) to screaming...

Overule-able of course.

Which, in the context of our sub-discussion fits my view quite nicely: you are subject to God's mechanism of salvation/damnation whether you like it or not. Or are aware of your being subject to it or not.

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

You theorize. You can't actually say for sure where the drive to do the right thing comes from. The conscience, the bible holds, is a God given thing. A still, small voice that says to you what you ought to do. Still that is, until it ramps up (thankfully) to screaming...

Overule-able of course.

Which, in the context of our sub-discussion fits my view quite nicely: you are subject to God's mechanism of salvation/damnation whether you like it or not. Or are aware of your being subject to it or not.

And I can say, with just as much proof as you, that you are NOT subject to any measure of yourself except human. You theorize to the same extent as myself, except your theories are more far fetched and mine are based within humanity and our experience. 'Tis nice for you, of course, to delegate responsibility for your conscience to an outside influence. I do not allow myself that luxury and consider that my actions are down to me, and me alone.

Bannasidhe

Obliq I think he's trying to flirt convert and he has his eye on YOU.

:pac:

Obliq

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Obliq I think he's trying to flirt convert and he has his eye on YOU.

:pac:

He has more chance of hell freezing over, which as it does not exist, is no chance whatsoever. I'll stick with my nice jewish boy thankyou

Hercule Poirot

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which, in the context of our sub-discussion fits my view quite nicely: you are subject to God's mechanism of salvation/damnation whether you like it or not. Or are aware of your being subject to it or not.

I've read quite a lot of your posts (from #19 onwards) and there seems to be no choice for us puny humans. God finds us when he wants to, we are subservient whether we like it or not, we are bound to his will, he will choose how he communicates with us, etc etc.

You make your arguements for the existence of God and yet there is no substance. You talk of almost one-to-one comuunication, almost secretive "voices" but what does it prove? Nothing. When modern society finds a person claiming to talk to God we generally lock them up - surely an omniscient God would realise that these tactics are useless.

As for the projection, the idea that God exists being planted into our minds, that has absolutely no grounding and has already been dismantled in this thread by others.

You believe in God, so your presence in this thread is merely to express your belief because the question is "What would make you believe absolutely in the existence of God?" Not "How can we prove God exists through theological discussion?"

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I've read quite a lot of your posts (from #19 onwards) and there seems to be no choice for us puny humans. God finds us when he wants to, we are subservient whether we like it or not, we are bound to his will, he will choose how he communicates with us, etc etc.

The theme hasn't been "the way of salvation".

That said, you've seem to have glossed over what I have said about our thoughts, words and deeds being taken as a communication to God (even though we might not be believers). By that I don't just mean our doing 'right' but our response to our doing 'wrong'

There is also our response to his efforts to convict us that our ways are unrighteous - something within our own remit (whether we live with the load of guilt or suppress things and let ourselves off the hook for wrongdoing (frequently and elsewhere referred to 'forgiving ourselves" )

You make your arguements for the existe of God and yet there is no substance.

You give lie to the fact that you've read much from #19. Post 19 and frequent reference thereafter point out that the argument at #19 has nothing to do with arguments for the existence of God

You talk of almost one-to-one comuunication, almost secretive "voices" but what does it prove? Nothing. When modern society finds a person claiming to talk to God we generally lock them up - surely an omniscient God would realise that these tactics are useless.

As for the projection, the idea that God exists being planted into our minds, that has absolutely...

When you've actually grasped the argument made you might consider returning. As it is you're off half-cocked: not taking the time to find out what the discussion is about, yet taking the liberty to plunge in as if.

"Read alot of my posts from #19" my arse..


(sorry Obliq, hon..)

Mark Hamill

Hey antiskeptic. Hey, hey *waves*
Post 65, any chance of a response? It completely debunks your argument and avoiding it doesn't make that go away. And saying its irrelevant breaks the ninth commandment, so that's a no-no for you too.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interesting. It's as if you expected a Christian not to sin (when what has a person run to God is the fact of his sin)

So you admit that a) your attitude and response to Bannasidhe amount to sinning, but b) that your belief in god gives you an excuse to sin? Its ok to sin against people, because that sin brings you closer to god? You would think that someone who truely believes in the ultimate punishments for sin would, you know, not sin.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hey antiskeptic. Hey, hey *waves*
Post 65, any chance of a response? It completely debunks your argument and avoiding it doesn't make that go away. And saying its irrelevant breaks the ninth commandment, so that's a no-no for you too.

I suspect he'll keep on ignoring you in favour of being rude to people. Addicted to sin. Lost and Damned for sure, so he is.