J C wrote: » Here is a question for all Atheists out there:- What would convince you that God exists ?
obplayer wrote: » Well a visit to Lourdes that showed glass eyes, wooden legs and such like, with the evidence that the glass eyes had been replaced by real ones and similarly with the wooden legs would be a good start. Also a voice from the sky telling us he would be opening a passage in in a sea, any sea, and then it happening would also be a step in the right direction.
MilanPan!c wrote: » Evidence?
antiskeptic wrote: » Empirical evidence you mean? And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe? Of course you would! But what then? Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you. If he hadn't configured you that way, then convinced of things by empirical evidence you wouldn't be. Would you? Since you would now realise that you are in fact reliant on God to convince you of God's existence - and not on the method itself - on what basis would you preclude God having other means whereby he bring about conviction in a person? If no basis then the demand you make for evidence would be stripped of the need to insert 'empirical' in front, since any evidence God chose to provide a person would be good enough. - So as to offset likely bootstrap responses: You would also realise (having been convinced of God's existence via empirical evidence) that the level of confidence you have arriving at conclusions via empiricism reaches the levels they do only because God decided that level of confidence was to be assigned. There is nothing to stop God assigning higher levels of confidence to other means he has of demonstrating his existence. Which would render empiricism a second-rate means of God's demonstrating his existence
antiskeptic wrote: » Empirical evidence you mean? And if God demonstrated his existence empirically you would then believe? Wouldn't you now realise that God created you and had made it so that the sense of "conviction" that comes about on receipt of "empirical evidence" is a structure created by God and installed in you.
marienbad wrote: » what if God demonstrated his/her/its existence non-empirically , seeing as he is all powerful, what then ?
SW wrote: » what exactly is non-empirical evidence?
lmaopml wrote: » Er, it seems that is already done. Hence, people of faith around and stuff.
marienbad wrote: » Faith is the belief of things in the absence of evidence is it not Imaopml ?
lmaopml wrote: » No it is not.
MilanPan!c wrote: » Faith: "Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
lmaopml wrote: » MilanPan!c wrote: » Faith: "Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith The key word is "empirical"- and that is not exactly new or overwhelming. That is what you are looking for. Evidence- the lazy way. It is a word used alot let's face it. However it is not applicable-you must get over not only yourself but also that....."empirical "word and not only see black and white, but also in the reality that there are people of faith and how they are there at all.. Demanding empirical evidence before I believe in fairies, even popular ones, isn't lazy. It's of course relevant, and even people like Jesus knew this. He didn't walk around telling lepers to search their intellect and they'd find evidence for him being the son of god, did he? He didn't ask Thomas to simply rationalise his miraculous rise from the dead, did he? Religious types love to belittle empirical evidence, and even say it doesn't matter (you know why would actual evidence of a supernatural being that showed up as a man for a couple of years - and who also created all of the universe be important?). But the fact is, if there was a god, as described by any religious teaching, we'd know. We wouldn't be pissing about trying to decide if you need evidence to believe in a fairy or not. And by the by, you were wrong about the definition of faith. Even the bible defines it as belief in something that can't be seen.
MilanPan!c wrote: » Faith: "Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith The key word is "empirical"- and that is not exactly new or overwhelming. That is what you are looking for. Evidence- the lazy way. It is a word used alot let's face it. However it is not applicable-you must get over not only yourself but also that....."empirical "word and not only see black and white, but also in the reality that there are people of faith and how they are there at all..
MilanPan!c wrote: » lmaopml wrote: » Demanding empirical evidence before I believe in fairies, even popular ones, isn't lazy. It's of course relevant, and even people like Jesus knew this. Exactly, case in point! He knew it, but he knew also that there would be some who would not believe. He didn't walk around telling lepers to search their intellect and they'd find evidence for him being the son of god, did he? Absolutely not. He didn't ask Thomas to simply rationalise his miraculous rise from the dead, did he? No, he didn't - In fact Thomas words on seeing the 'empirical' evidence was 'My Lord and My God'... Religious types love to belittle empirical evidence, and even say it doesn't matter (you know why would actual evidence of a supernatural being that showed up as a man for a couple of years - and who also created all of the universe be important?). I actually think your tone is not very nice - religious 'types' - are unfortunately for you a world wide phenomena that you are going to have to learn to live with - But the fact is, if there was a god, as described by any religious teaching, we'd know. Would you? Please explain this fascinating incite? In detail? We wouldn't be pissing about trying to decide if you need evidence to believe in a fairy or not. No, you wouldn't be pissing about on the Christianity forum if you had half the answers you presume are so very obvious to well 'you' - which you don't, so you know what you can do with that...
lmaopml wrote: » Demanding empirical evidence before I believe in fairies, even popular ones, isn't lazy. It's of course relevant, and even people like Jesus knew this.
He didn't walk around telling lepers to search their intellect and they'd find evidence for him being the son of god, did he?
He didn't ask Thomas to simply rationalise his miraculous rise from the dead, did he?
Religious types love to belittle empirical evidence, and even say it doesn't matter (you know why would actual evidence of a supernatural being that showed up as a man for a couple of years - and who also created all of the universe be important?).
But the fact is, if there was a god, as described by any religious teaching, we'd know.
We wouldn't be pissing about trying to decide if you need evidence to believe in a fairy or not.
lmaopml wrote: » MilanPan!c wrote: » Exactly, case in point! He knew it, but he knew also that there would be some who would not believe. Absolutely not. No, he didn't - In fact Thomas words on seeing the 'empirical' evidence was 'My Lord and My God'... I actually think your tone is not very nice - religious 'types' - are unfortunately for you a world wide phenomena that you are going to have to learn to live with - Would you? Please explain this fascinating incite? In detail? No, you wouldn't be pissing about on the Christianity forum if you had half the answers you presume are so very obvious to well 'you' - which you don't, so you know what you can do with that... I do this for my own entertainment - not looking for any answers. I do have another slightly more devious reason for being here, but 99% of it is entertainment only. As for how we'd know - it's obvious once you stop treating the "big question" like its so unknowable: the entire history of "god" - the religious book - have god interacting with humanity. The amount he interacts is inversely proportional to the amount of scientific knowledge we have as a species. The more we learn and document what we know, the less god shows up. "God" in other words - can only exist in a world where people can't rational exam the evidence for god. Now, you should note I'm not taking about the numbers of "faithful". The desperate and naive and hopeless - like the poor - will always be with us. Faith - the desire to believe in something for no reason - follows all such behaviour. It's a bit like aliens. The only reason to believe they've visited earth, is because you want to - consciously or unconsciously. And of course the more people want something they can't control, the more they turn to irrational nonsense. "Pray for me" etc. It's sad, that humans haven't evolved past it all yet. And my tone? Have a pray and maybe "god" will give you peace.
MilanPan!c wrote: » Exactly, case in point! He knew it, but he knew also that there would be some who would not believe. Absolutely not. No, he didn't - In fact Thomas words on seeing the 'empirical' evidence was 'My Lord and My God'... I actually think your tone is not very nice - religious 'types' - are unfortunately for you a world wide phenomena that you are going to have to learn to live with - Would you? Please explain this fascinating incite? In detail? No, you wouldn't be pissing about on the Christianity forum if you had half the answers you presume are so very obvious to well 'you' - which you don't, so you know what you can do with that...
MilanPan!c wrote: » "Reasoned concept of god" is a oxymoron
MilanPan!c wrote: » As for the difference between Pantheists and Panentheists, well... I am well aware of that.
MilanPan!c wrote: » Existence is proof of existence. If you choose to label it "god" that's fine, but I'm with the majority of people that label you and Spinoza as atheists.
MilanPan!c wrote: » And btw., the laws of the universe are fairly strict. No one but someone trying to prove some unproveable point would suggest otherwise. Those limits by definition mean that the universe is not infinitely creative, and therefore greatly limit that avenue you like to pursue.
nagirrac wrote: » No it isn't. The fact that you have no belief in God only relates to you and not to anybody else. What makes you think your ability to reason is better than anyone else's? Your condescending comments elsewhere towards the "poor" and the "naive" simply demonstrate arrogance. Some of the most brilliant minds in history and currently alive are believers, do you think they are incapable of reason, but your superior mind is? Stop bluffing, if you were aware of it, you wouldn't have linked pantheism with a supernatural idea of God. The majority of people, including yourself apparently, don't even know what a Pantheist is. I realize some atheists are desperate to inflate their numbers, but counting people that believe in God is taking it a bit far, no? How do you know that the laws of the universe are "fairly strict"? You are basing this claim on what exactly? What are the strict laws that determined how our universe emerged, and from what it emerged? What are the strict laws that govern the 96% of our observable universe that we cannot even describe currently?
MilanPan!c wrote: » All we have as humans - on a most basic level - is our belief in our beliefs.
I am comfortable enough with my own judgement as a human that, if I came across legitimate evidence of the existence of god, evidence I believed was irrefutable - and I don't believe this will ever happen - I would accept that judgement and try and come to terms with what ever it meant. If possible.
obplayer wrote: » If he she or it demonstrated it's existence empirically wouldn't you now realise that God created you? No, why should I?. Do you realise how you say nothing at all? Using words is not the same as logic.
antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. So far so good. What I've done for you is lay out one consequence of concluding that God exists by empirical means. Namely, what it means for the method whereby you conclude he exists. Have you got a response to that?
MilanPan!c wrote: » Faith is the conviction of things not seen. - Heb 11:3
