nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

Then to phrase my problem in a different way:

Is God's word declared in the Bible or the Quran?

I'm more than happy to go into the ins and outs of what I think about the Qur'an if that question is asked of me on the Islam forum or if there is a Muslim present to contribute to the discussion.

For me why I believe and trust in Jesus Christ is on the basis of looking to the eyewitness testimony we have concerning Him and evaluating this in the light of reality.

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Just wondering what your thoughts are on new born babies, have they sinned? If so what sin are they guilty of?

I think there is two camps on this issue:
Both of these positions would certainly use Romans 5 as a proof text. Namely verse 12 which says that Adam our representative fell into sin, therefore we did also, and then carrying on Christ paid the penalty for sin by taking the wrath of God on our behalf, therefore we will be saved by His blood.

The first being that the newborn is innocent but will inevitably sin as a result of their nature being corrupt as a result of the fall.

The second being that the newborn is nonetheless guilty of the sin of Adam as a result of the fall even if they have not committed a sin themselves at that point. Proof texts for this position would be the use of Psalm 51 for example particularly verses 5 and 6. This position would also heavily use the fact that since the grace that we receive in Christ Jesus is our representative as a result of Him standing in our place on the cross that it is entirely legitimate to regard Adam as our representative in respect to our sinful nature and our guilt before God because He sinned against God.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

If something happened that you can't explain...

Posting a "god of the gaps" response to my question fine but you aren't actually addressing my question. You can start that discussion again if you like. However, if you want to respond to my question then you will have to do so within the context that the question was asked.

And that context was two theists of one sort or another (sorry tommy2bad, I've never been sure how to classify your beliefs) talking about how we classify the types of evidence that might exist for miracles. I believe that miracles happen and I assume that tommy2bad does as well. (If I've got this wrong my apologies.) My question was asked from the perspective of a worldview that embraces an interventionist God. Not foorm an atheistic worldview that discounts God.

It's rare but occasionally there are discussions on this forum that don't boil down to "there is a God"/ "there is no god".

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

For example a lot of theists cite the bible as the word of god, but when confronted on their proof simply retort "because it says it is." This kind of circular logic is typical of theological thought. Another point is the incompatibility of omnipotence and omniscience, two traits attributed to the Abrahamic god, and routinely ignored by theological "theorists", despite the incompatibility totally destroying any chance that their god exists.
Or consider one of the "greatest thinkers" of the catholic church, Thomas Aquinas, whose ideas are still one of the main bases for christian theology in the west, and how his "proofs" for god can be so easily debunked, just by thinking logically.

Are you talking about theists now or theologians? They are two different things and that's why it possible to have atheist and agnostic theologians. Slavoj Zizek might loosely be considered such an example. Undoubtedly there are theists who argue from the authority of scripture when talking to non-Chrsitains. But not all of us do. So I don't see you point.

Can you explain how omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible?

As for Aquinas, the link you posted that apparently so easily debunks his Five Ways is in reality a link to a quiz explaining what the Five Ways are all about. It doesn't debunk the arguments. Rather, it's apparently indented as an aid to students studying them.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

I'm more than happy to go into the ins and outs of what I think about the Qur'an if that question is asked of me on the Islam forum or if there is a Muslim present to contribute to the discussion.

For me why I believe and trust in Jesus Christ is on the basis of looking to the eyewitness testimony we have concerning Him and evaluating this in the light of reality.

So your reason for believing the Bible is true is not based on the declaration, but rather "evaluating eyewitness testimony in the light of reality".

This, to me, sounds like an empirical argument, rather than a revelatory one.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

So your reason for believing the Bible is true is not based on the declaration, but rather "evaluating eyewitness testimony in the light of reality".

This, to me, sounds like an empirical argument, rather than a revelatory one.

What God has declared, if it has been declared in any way at all is evident in reality. Psalm 19 amongst other Scriptures advocate and encourage us to see God's word at work in the world.

J C

marienbad wrote: »

If the empirical evidence was convincing everyone would believe it , just as we do with gravity .

And that is before we even get to the question of which God and why.

Not quite ... people tend to 'edit out' or 'explain away' empirical evidence that doesn't 'fit' with their worldview.
Gravity isn't something that is unique to one particular worldview and thus it isn't 'edited out' or 'explained away' ... like the physical evidence for God's existence is 'edited out' and/or 'explained away' by Atheists (and some Theists ... for some inexplicable reeason).

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their isn't!
Any evidence we have is testimony or conjecture, while we may accept that as evidence it's not the sort you can repeat in a lab or verify with experiment.
This dosn't make theology redundant but it dose remove it from the hard sciences and closer to economics or philosophy.
It's still the 'Queen of Sciences'.

Perhaps! But I was not talking about repeatability or what goes on in the lab. I was actually taking empirical measurement - or a facet of it - that can be part of an analysis of contemporary reports of miracles. And here I assume that this would be observational in nature.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

What God has declared, if it has been declared in any way at all is evident in reality. Psalm 19 amongst other Scriptures advocate and encourage us to see God's word at work in the world.

Then there is no major difference between the epistemic paradigms of Christians and atheists.

tommy2bad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Posting a "god of the gaps" response to my question fine but you aren't actually addressing my question. You can start that discussion again if you like. However, if you want to respond to my question then you will have to do so within the context that the question was asked.

And that context was two theists of one sort or another (sorry tommy2bad, I've never been sure how to classify your beliefs) talking about how we classify the types of evidence that might exist for miracles. I believe that miracles happen and I assume that tommy2bad does as well. (If I've got this wrong my apologies.) My question was asked from the perspective of a worldview that embraces an interventionist God. Not foorm an atheistic worldview that discounts God.

It's rare but occasionally there are discussions on this forum that don't boil down to "there is a God"/ "there is no god".

Don't apologize, I'm not sure how I classifies my beliefs myself!
Ahh OK I thought you meant God in general, now I know it miracles, I agree with you.
Yes I believe in things that cant be explained and I attribute them to the intervention of God as opposed to just claiming coincidence or 'just because we cant explain dosent mean it's god'. Mostly I shrug and say 'thank God for that' and think no more about it.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Probabilities aren't something that exist by themselves, so the system wouldn't be "a range of probabilities". Instead, we say that, while a classical system is described by a configuration [latex]Q[/latex], a quantum system is described by a function on the space of all configurations [latex]\psi(Q)[/latex]. The wave function is not a probability function. For that, you need [latex]|\psi|^2[/latex]. So even if you adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, and interpret the function as a mathematical tool, the system still exists.

Rather than discussing the math, which I think belongs in the science forum, what I am interested in is what QM is telling us about the underlying reality of our universe, with the caveat that nobody actually fully understands what QM is telling us, otherwise we would have an agreed interpretation. The world of the subatomic world (quantum) and the world of the macro world (classical) are very different, all I am saying is we need to be careful about our conclusions from observed macro "reality" when these seem to be on very shaky foundations in terms of our underlying "reality".

My use of the term "probabilities" is in the context of in the classical world where we can clearly describe an object's position and momentum, while in the QM world these attributes are unclear or "wave like" until we measure them. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as I understand it, implies at some point along the spectrum betwen QM and classical, the rules of QM no longer apply and we should just ignore the paradoxes created by QM. Where this "some point" is nobody knows, but Bell's theory and the experimental proofs of Bell's theory since 1964 suggest the rules of QM extend up into the macro world.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

Don't apologize, I'm not sure how I classifies my beliefs myself!
Ahh OK I thought you meant God in general, now I know it miracles, I agree with you.
Yes I believe in things that cant be explained and I attribute them to the intervention of God as opposed to just claiming coincidence or 'just because we cant explain dosent mean it's god'. Mostly I shrug and say 'thank God for that' and think no more about it.

Thanks.

BTW, that link to miracles I posted above is an interesting listen.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Well it is always going to be a one sided conversation Imaopml when I ask you a question and you ignore it.

Well at least you were able to tell yourself another answer so - while still avoiding Fanny's question way back. Well done.

Yes it is. What do you think I think it is?

I don't claim to be a mind reader, but it seems to me that you think a particular discipline and an odd form of critical thinking is the best way to live your life.

You still haven't answered the question, why in this discipline of seeking knowledge do scientists, if they are following the scientific method, not allow concepts like "God" into their scientific theories if they and you and everyone else can have strong confidence in God's existence?

You may remember me saying to you that you won't find him under your microscope - and I would be doing a terrible injustice to insert the Almighty God into such a thing. I observe his handiwork, I don't presume more...

You have answered your own question. Which always makes my life easier.

Why is there a way to know things in the lab, and a different other way to know things outside of the lab?

I'm glad to be of service

I thought I answered you before, but apparently not to your satisfaction. There is no different way, a person is a person, whether they work in the lab and believe in God, or work in the lab and don't - The lab is not about making a personal declaration about God, it's about investigating his work. At least that's the way I would approach it....Have you a problem with that?

Why not? What is wrong with the scientific method that means it isn't enough to live by. Why have these other things not been incorporated into the scientific method if they work just a well?

Well, it's your philosophy Zombrex. Live by the 'method'! you are quite entitled to do that if you wish -

However, I looked at how you can 'measure' love in the lab, 'measure' how you are functioning, and view it and think this tells you something - and to me that doesn't work or really do anything about gaining wisdom and knowledge other than to say what it's like to live on the very surface of yourself, knowing nothing. Short range meanings and long range meaningless, hope of things, and hopelessness. Neitzche.

It reminds me of the book of Ecclesiastes and all therein - which is a fabulous book, I'd highly recommend it.....it's supposedly written by the most wise person - and it is very wise and amazingly honest.

Of course not. It is people that annoy me.

Well, we are literally a global epidemic, that's going to cause you much strife.

Humanity spent an awful long time dwelling in ignorance and superstition because we hadn't developed or revised methods to accurately tell what was happening around us.

It would be an awful shame to allow some to drag us back there because the wish the world was one particular way.

Well, apparently you are fighting the good fight - in the meantime people will continue to evolve I'm quite sure, and will continue to hopefully have some depth too.

DEFTLEFTHAND

How do you feel about certain atheists letting themselves down and using disgusting derogatory language towards Christianity? I feel sorry for these people, they're obviously angry pseudo intellectuals who've listened to too much Christopher Hitchens. It's very hard for me not to unleash profanity on these people, They disrespect us, they laugh at us and they think they've got it made. Maybe on their date of death they won't laugh so much anymore

lazygal

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How do you feel about certain atheists letting themselves down and using disgusting derogatory language towards Christianity? I feel sorry for these people, they're obviously angry pseudo intellectuals who've listened to too much Christopher Hitchens. It's very hard for me not to unleash profanity on these people, They disrespect us, they laugh at us and they think they've got it made. Maybe on their date of death they won't laugh so much anymore

To whom are you referring?

Would your faith not sustain you through criticism, rather than needing to 'unleash profanity' on those who express different views? What did Jesus do when his faith was challenged by non believers?

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

You needn't even posit a christian and a Muslim, myself and philogos would be both christian and would have disagreements about what was and wasn't revelation, even disagree about what revelation is.
None of which invalidates our belief or the existence of God.

Depends on what you mean "invalidates".

The point demonstrates that believes, simply by logic, must believe things which are not true, but still continue to believe they are true.

So the mere act of believing something does not make it true. While you seem happy to accept this point in relation to the details of God, you don't seem happy to accept this point in relation to the actual question of his existence.

Or to put it another way, if you can be wrong about something you believe to be a revelation from God, why can you not be wrong about the existence of God himself.

After all to be wrong about that you simply have to be wrong about all revelation. If you can be wrong about a revelation, you can also logically be wrong about all revelation.

If you cannot tell if you are actually right or wrong about a revelation beyond simply believing you are right, how can you tell you aren't wrong about all revelation?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Posting a "god of the gaps" response to my question fine but you aren't actually addressing my question. You can start that discussion again if you like. However, if you want to respond to my question then you will have to do so within the context that the question was asked.

You seem to be missing the point.

I frankly don't care if you start from the position that God exists or not. The point is that miracles are not evidence for God unless you assume they are an act of God, which is circular reasoning and therefore cannot be evidence for the position you are starting from.

It doesn't matter if you assume God does or doesn't exist, that doesn't change the point that even if he does exist you cannot know what caused a miracle and thus you cannot use that to support the position that either he exists, or even if you assume he exists, that he causes miracles..

The only way around that is to assume something was a miracle and assume that it must have been God.

Which makes the claim that miracles are evidence for God, or an interaction by God, completely circular, in which case they can't be evidence anyway.

Miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> I know this because God causes miracles -> I know this because miracles are evidence for an interventionist God -> ...

And so on

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point.

I don't believe I'm missing the point. In fact, I think you are.

Zombrex wrote: »

It doesn't matter if you assume God does or doesn't exist, that doesn't change the point that even if he does exist you cannot know what caused a miracle and thus you cannot use that to support the position that either he exists, or even if you assume he exists, that he causes miracles..

A miracle is by definition a special act carried out by God. To say that you can't know that a miracle is carried out by God is false by definition. This is basic logic.

If we are both being frank, I'm not interested in getting into an epistemological debate with you about what I can and can't know. If you want to know my purpose for replying to tommy then please reread the relevant posts and consider the context. I've outlined this but you have seemingly ignored it because you are again raising objections that have little relevance to the discussion. I wasn't debating the existence of miracles or God, nor was I making grand epistemological claims. I was presupposing that miracles happen and discussing this with somebody who is apparently of the same mind. This is why we talked briefly about how miracles can be classified evidentially.

If you want to start introducing Humean arguments or whatever against the possibility of miracles then that is great. But please do attempt to shoehorn this into the discussion I was having with tommy and make like it is of relevance.

PopePalpatine

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How do you feel about certain atheists letting themselves down and using disgusting derogatory language towards Christianity? I feel sorry for these people, they're obviously angry pseudo intellectuals who've listened to too much Christopher Hitchens. It's very hard for me not to unleash profanity on these people, They disrespect us, they laugh at us and they think they've got it made. Maybe on their date of death they won't laugh so much anymore

Oh bloody hell, don't tell me you're using Pascal's Wager. *facepalm*

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe I'm missing the point. In fact, I think you are.

A miracle is by definition a special act carried out by God.

And therefore cannot be evidence for said god nor for his intervention . You have to know that the action was carried out by God in order to say it was a miracle carried out by God (or just a miracle if you define a miracle as having to be carried out by the Christian god to be called a miracle) at which point saying it is evidence for that God, or that this god is interventionist, is circular reasoning.

This is true whether you believe in God or not. It's a pretty simple point Fanny. In fact is true for anything not just questions of God. A conclusion cannot be used as support for a asserting supporting that conclusion, that is a logical fallacy.

Zombrex

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh bloody hell, don't tell me you're using Pascal's Wager. *facepalm*

In most religions it is considered worse to worship the wrong god than no god at all, so even if you were a betting man atheism seems the way to go.

tommy2bad

Or to put it another way, if you can be wrong about something you believe to be a revelation from God, why can you not be wrong about the existence of God himself.

Zombrex, you can see where your contradicting your own view with this can't you?

And therefore cannot be evidence for said god nor for his intervention

It was never intended to be evidence for god, that assumption was my bad.

Oh bloody hell, don't tell me you're using Pascal's Wager. *facepalm*

P.P it's worse than that, I think it's more saying they will get their comeuppance.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Zombrex, you can see where your contradicting your own view with this can't you?

No, but then you seem to have some odd notions about what my view is

The point is that you acknowledge that you can be wrong about some revelations, but not that you can be wrong about revelation in general. This misses the point that the general notion of a god that reveals stuff to us is just the sum of the parts of the individual revelations.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It was never intended to be evidence for god, that assumption was my bad.

It isn't an assumption, Fanny said

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.

If Fanny was pointing out that once you believe God exists, and once you believe that God has caused a miracle to happen, then this miracle is then evidence that God exists and God intervened, then as I said this is circular reasoning.

tommy2bad wrote: »

P.P it's worse than that, I think it's more saying they will get their comeuppance.

That is my point. Most religions put forward the notion that their god will be more angry if you worship the wrong god (the Old Testament has entire civilisastions being wiped out for that crime), than no god at all.

So given that multitude of gods that humans have supposed existed, the odds of picking the right one are pretty slim, it would make more sense to not believe in any of them and then if you eventually meet one of them plead that while you didn't worship him at least you didn't worship once of the other gods.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

No, but then you seem to have some odd notions about what my view is
TBH at this stage I'm not sure what my views are let alone yours. My point is being wrong about something doesn't invalidate the something. If it did we would disappear into the vacuum of our ignorance.

The point is that you acknowledge that you can be wrong about some revelations, but not that you can be wrong about revelation in general. This misses the point that the general notion of a god that reveals stuff to us is just the sum of the parts of the individual revelations.

It isn't an assumption, Fanny said

Why would we say that there is no empirical evidence for God? For example, if one is of the opinion that the evidence for a particular miracle claim is reliable then that surely qualifies as evidence for an interventionist God.
Yes that what I said and he clarified by sayint he was working in a theistic worldview.
If Fanny was pointing out that once you believe God exists, and once you believe that God has caused a miracle to happen, then this miracle is then evidence that God exists and God intervened, then as I said this is circular reasoning.
Sometimes it's all we have to go on till we find the proof, Higgs boson for example!

That is my point. Most religions put forward the notion that their god will be more angry if you worship the wrong god (the Old Testament has entire civilisastions being wiped out for that crime), than no god at all.

So given that multitude of gods that humans have supposed existed, the odds of picking the right one are pretty slim, it would make more sense to not believe in any of them and then if you eventually meet one of them plead that while you didn't worship him at least you didn't worship once of the other gods.

Hey I never said their weren't some nasty people in various religions, it's a home for sinners after all

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

My point is being wrong about something doesn't invalidate the something. If it did we would disappear into the vacuum of our ignorance.

I never claimed it did. We are discussing what you know, not what exists. You accept that you might get a revelation wrong, but you don't seem to accept that you might get all revelations wrong, and thus believe in something revealing stuff to you that wasn't actually being revealed.

Say God exists, and has revealed stuff to humans, but some humans have just made up or imagined revelations that did not actually come from God. You seem happy to accept that this can and has happened.

Imagine though that God doesn't exist and has never revealed stuff to humans, but some humans have just made up or imagined revelations that did not actually come from God.

That is the same as above just taking it to a larger extent, it just expands the set of imagined revelations to include all revelations, rather than just some of them.

Why are you happy that the first can and has happened, but not that the second could be what has happened.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes that what I said and he clarified by sayint he was working in a theistic worldview.

Does the theistic world view ignore logical fallacies :P

As I explained to Fanny whether you believe in the existence of God or not is irrelevant to my point.

It is circular reasoning to say that the existence of miracles are evidence for an interventionist God if it is necessary to already accept the evidence of an interventionist God in order to assert that the thing was a miracle in the first place.

Your "worldview" is irrelevant to that, it is simply a logical fallacy, whether you are talking about God or not. I believe in electrons. But I would not say that I can use the existence of electrons as evidence for the existence of electrons.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sometimes it's all we have to go on till we find the proof, Higgs boson for example!

But that is exactly the point. You cannot say that the assumption that the Higgs boson exists is evidence that the Higgs boson exists.

You cannot say that if you just accept the "worldview" that the Higgs boson exists then this acceptance becomes evidence that the Higgs boson exists.

Again all of that is circular reasoning, and thus a logical fallacy.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hey I never said their weren't some nasty people in various religions, it's a home for sinners after all

What does that have to do with anything?

The point is that of all the gods that people claim exist most are described as having the characteristic that they will be more angry if you worship the wrong god (ie not them) than if you worship no god at all.

Therefore, if one takes a purely statistical approach, it makes more sense to worship no gods, since the odds of worshiping the correct god are slim and the punishment for doing that is great.

In other words, you are far more likely to end up worshiping the wrong god than the right god, and thus you are far more likely to end up in front of the god you didn't worship, at which point it is better to have not worshiped any gods than have worshiped the wrong god.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Rather than discussing the math, which I think belongs in the science forum, what I am interested in is what QM is telling us about the underlying reality of our universe, with the caveat that nobody actually fully understands what QM is telling us, otherwise we would have an agreed interpretation. The world of the subatomic world (quantum) and the world of the macro world (classical) are very different, all I am saying is we need to be careful about our conclusions from observed macro "reality" when these seem to be on very shaky foundations in terms of our underlying "reality".

Quantum mechanics isn't wrong at the macroscopic scale. It's just horribly complicated to work with. Another way of phrasing this is classical physics is an approximation of quantum mechanics at large length scales. This is known as the correspondence principle. So if you really wanted to, you could describe a car with a quantum wavefunction. But considering it can take years to calculate properties of a few atoms if approximations are not made, you can imagine how long it would take to calculate the classical properties of a car (many ages of the universe). Plus, you would ultimately end up with the same results if you had taken an effective classical model and spent half an hour calculating the equations of motion.

Interpretations aren't unique to quantum mechanics. There are different interpretations of classical mechanics too, for example. Do newton's laws represent an ontological reality? Or is a more holistic Lagrangian more appropriate? Or perhaps Hamiltonian mechanics is more "real". The same goes for relativity. Is spacetime a mathematical device or a real thing? Here is a clip of Richard Feynman describing different interpretations of the law of gravitation. (Watch from 33:36 to 40:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw&t=33m36s

The reason QM gets more attention is because it is so different to classical physics. I.e. It's not that we can't understand QM. We just can't understand it in terms of anything we are more familiar with.

My use of the term "probabilities" is in the context of in the classical world where we can clearly describe an object's position and momentum, while in the QM world these attributes are unclear or "wave like" until we measure them. The Copenhagen Interpretation, as I understand it, implies at some point along the spectrum betwen QM and classical, the rules of QM no longer apply and we should just ignore the paradoxes created by QM. Where this "some point" is nobody knows, but Bell's theory and the experimental proofs of Bell's theory since 1964 suggest the rules of QM extend up into the macro world.

To re-emphasise the point above: The rules of QM always apply, even at the classical level. They just predict what classical mechanics predicts. What is controversial about the Copenhagen interpretation from a mathematical perspective is it postulates one rule for an unobserved quantum system, and another rule for an observed system. Modern physics, by contrast, normally formulates wavefunction collapse as decoherence which is a more unified formalism.

J C

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How do you feel about certain atheists letting themselves down and using disgusting derogatory language towards Christianity? I feel sorry for these people, they're obviously angry pseudo intellectuals who've listened to too much Christopher Hitchens. It's very hard for me not to unleash profanity on these people, They disrespect us, they laugh at us and they think they've got it made. Maybe on their date of death they won't laugh so much anymore

That kind of abuse is the mark of a lost argument.
I feel sorry for them TBH ... living a life of denial isolated from our living and loving God ...
... it could all be so different for them if they just repented and were Saved ... or even if they just stopped hating Christians who only want the very best for them.
I am regularly called a liar and a fraud ... when I present the truth to them ... that God exists and can be proven to exist.

Please don't unleash profanity on them ... we are to love our enemies ... and do good those who hate us.
I find it also keeps my blood-pressure under control ... when I do unto others what I would have them do unto me ... even when they don't.
God bless you.

J C

Morbert

J C wrote: »

That kind of abuse is the mark of a lost argument.
I feel sorry for them TBH ... living a life of denial isolated from our living and loving God ...
... it could all be so different for them if the just repented and were Saved ... or if they just stopped hating Christians who want the very best for them.
I am regularly called a liar and a fraud ... when I present the truth to them ... that God exists and can be proven to exist.

J C, to be fair, the vapid inanity you so frequently indulge in doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

J C, to be fair, the vapid inanity you so frequently indulge in doesn't really contribute anything to the conversation.

You are quite entitled to your opinion.
I could be equally cruel in my comments on your contributions - and with more justification,
However, such generalisations really don't have any substance or argumental value - and aren't a loving way of living.

Lets love one another as Jesus loves us ... forgiving each other's Human frailties and shortcomings.

Zombrex

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How do you feel about certain atheists letting themselves down and using disgusting derogatory language towards Christianity? I feel sorry for these people, they're obviously angry pseudo intellectuals who've listened to too much Christopher Hitchens. It's very hard for me not to unleash profanity on these people, They disrespect us, they laugh at us and they think they've got it made. Maybe on their date of death they won't laugh so much anymore

Given that on this forum we have had people defending slavery, calling for science to be altered to allow Creationism, explaining to women why submission to men is a good thing for them, saying how homosexual relationships are not equivalent in love to heterosexual ones and detailing how transgender people are sick (and that is what I can think of from the last month), I think if the worst atheists do to you is laugh at you consider yourself lucky :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

And therefore cannot be evidence for said god nor for his intervention . You have to know that the action was carried out by God in order to say it was a miracle carried out by God (or just a miracle if you define a miracle as having to be carried out by the Christian god to be called a miracle) at which point saying it is evidence for that God, or that this god is interventionist, is circular reasoning.

This is true whether you believe in God or not. It's a pretty simple point Fanny. In fact is true for anything not just questions of God. A conclusion cannot be used as support for a asserting supporting that conclusion, that is a logical fallacy.

OK, it's my last try at this. I understand that you think my argument is based on circular reasoning. And I would agree with you if I was making an argument for miracles and this argument took the form of - if A then B therefore A. But I was doing nothing of the sort.

Remember, the conversation between tommy and myself was a conversation between two theists. When I replied to tommy I didn't argue for miracles because the presupposition that miracles happen was implicit in the conversation. Given this presupposition we went on to discuss how miracles could be classified. I questioned whether a miracle would not qualify - at least in some manner - as empirical evidence because it could potentially be observed and measured. That's all.

The fact that you totally discount miracles and therefore any evidence of them is of no interest to the discussion tommy and myself had. I wasn't attempting to justify the reality of miracles to a sceptic. I was talking with someone who already believe that miracles happen about another issue.

I've actually spent more time defending myself against an argument I didn't make then I have talked about the one I did.