In God's Name

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:

---

No, that's not what I meant. What I meant was as I've stated it, and that is all.

To give further context to my previous post; one simple way to know if a message is truly Christian or not is if it is telling the secular humanist world (which is the world at large) what it wants to hear. If it is telling the secular humanist world what it wants to hear, then it is not a Christian message. Jesus said that the world would hate his followers just as it hated him. Because he told the world that what it does is evil, and they were not interested in hearing that. Jesus' message was extremely offensive to the secular humanists of his day. Those of his followers who are not telling a message that is equally offensive to the secular humanists of today - aka the world in general - are definitely not following the teachings of Jesus, nor are they qualified to represent him.

Since making my previous post in this thread, I had come across an article of how the people on the panel of the program were chosen, and one of the largest factors was "popularity". That right there is a major red flag to know right off the bat that the panel was illegitimate.

Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.

In regards to the comments such as "Bin Laden is busy so he couldn't be included": there are plenty of non-terrorist people who would give a qualified, accurate representation of their religion which would offend the audience, but were obviously excluded for the sake of telling the audience what it wants to hear even if it does not truly represent the religions at all. The program makers could easily have found and included such panelists if they had the least bit of interest in the truth.

Quote:

---

To give further context to my previous post.........some nonsense

---

Ah bollox once again , we have been through that interpretation of yours before nav and it is unfortunately utter crap .:yes:

Quote:

---

Clearly, the panel in the program discussed in this thread was cherrypicked to comprise of people who were, for the most part, going to promote a secular humanist agenda despite their self-appointed religious misnomer titles, and tell the world exactly what it wants to hear (and those people are popular precisely for that reason). This was done in the stead of a legitimate qualification to represent religious views, which would be because they are knowledgable of and believe in the content that dictates what their religion is.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: well I would say unbloodybelievable tripe , but then I remembered who it was who wrote it :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

And atheists dont like preachy so they come up with-->

-If I cant see him, or talk to him, touch it, then He cant be real...

---

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

...And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?

---

'something out there' likes him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

'something out there' likes him.

---

Or maybe God is Osama, since Osama is somehow beyond our perception, too. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?

---

Hmm, perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, and hence why you fail to respond to it?

Anyways, a couple of things. First of all, I think you're being a tad hostile about this whole issue, considering you seem to believe that people are free to believe what they want.:juggle2: Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in your points. Coming up with a concrete person in a concrete place would be the only way to scientifically prove any existence of god. Furthermore, I feel you're really missing the ball in terms of what the whole point of religion is all about. It isn't about proving everything to non-believers. Generally speaking, religion is a way in which humans seek to overcome suffering and achieve lasting peace. It isn't about scientific formulae or historical events, persay. Its about the message which the religion contains.

Now, as to "where" God exists? Well, obviously, I can't give you any place which we can physically touch. It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth. Now, I'm sure you're going to go on another rant about how non-sensical I'm being, but once again, you'll once again be missing the point that religion is based on faith, not science, so I fear that this thread will quickly go nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Generally speaking, religion is a way in which humans seek to overcome suffering and achieve lasting peace. [..] Its about the message which the religion contains.

---

Such ways and messages are not confined to religion. They don't require a God. If you are disinclined to talk about your God, please just say so, instead of conjuring up ever new definitions of what the real issue is.

Quote:

---

It is, as Boyar stated, a sort of different plane of existence, which is beyond our reach so long as our souls are bound to earth.

---

This is what religion has come to in the year
2007: we are treated to views of an undefined 'something', a sort of existential blob, located in a 'sort of different plane of existence'. And we haven't even touched on the presumed miracles, the holy books, avatars, smitings, or revelations in burning bushes.

Like I said, as soon as believers are forced to become concrete and show their cards, as it were, what you get is gobbledygook. Faith-based gobbledygook, but gobbledygook all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Such ways and messages are not confined to religion. They don't require a God. If you are disinclined to talk about your God, please just say so, instead of conjuring up ever new definitions of what the real issue is.This is what religion has come to in the year
2007: we are treated to views of an undefined 'something', a sort of existential blob, located in a 'sort of different plane of existence'. And we haven't even touched on the presumed miracles, the holy books, avatars, smitings, or revelations in burning bushes.

Like I said, as soon as believers are forced to become concrete and show their cards, as it were, what you get is gobbledygook. Faith-based gobbledygook, but gobbledygook all the same.

---

I Enjoy debating with you Adrian, so here we go. You want a definition of God? Well I've been reading Boethius today so I'll take a crack at it.

God is the First Cause, the Prime Good, from which everything has its genesis. By this definition to say "God created man" is not non-sensical because you are not saying he actually sculpted a little man out of clay and sneezed on him.

I think it's fair to say that God is too great to be comprehended by man, rather like man is too big to be comprehended by an ant, or the curve of the Earth is too big to actually comprehend whilst it is under foot.

It seems to me you reject God because you cannot explain or understand him, but by that token evolution, electricity, the forging of iron and bronze, should all have been rejected in their time also as nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? Or maybe what I wrote eludes you because my reasoning is from semantics, not experimental science, and you are used to the standard atheist claim that demands scientific proof. I do not demand scientific proof. All I demand is a proper definition of God. Alas, all I get from you is that 'He' (undefined) is somewhere in 'Heaven' (undefined) or so you 'like to think'. As soon as you come up with a concrete person in a concrete location, I will prove you wrong.

Since you must have felt that one coming, you flee into vagueness. You claim that God's existence is outside the realm of perception, yet simultaneously you claim that you perceive Him. That, too, is nonsensical.

Basically, you seem to adhere to one of the many nonsense definitions I mentioned above: God is 'love' or 'something out there' or 'everything we don't know'. How can 'everything we don't know' have written a book? And how come 'something out there' doesn't smite Osma bin Laden?

---

I read what you wrote. You want concrete proof of something that can be found thru piety and spirituality, obviously you have none of these, so you will always use the same argument to find the connection of (scientific) proof, and God, which I've stated before has no connection.

And dont claim what I've said when I never wrote it, and please re-read what I wrote if not, here's as summary.

God and your (logic, thus in common with science) proof cannot co-exist nor even come close to finding your answers because everyone fails to see that God cannot be found thru formula, the completely different science (which once again canNOT be used to find God), but thru faith, piety, and spirituality, in fact just go to church. Oh and did you know the book was basicaly, divine rules, some history, bibliography, and divine intervention? there ya go I just summed it up for ya .

And how do YOU know that Osama isnt already dead and someone took his place? heres your chance to find concrete proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

I read what you wrote. You want concrete proof of something that can be found thru piety and spirituality, obviously you have none of these, so you will always use the same argument to find the connection of (scientific) proof, and God, which I've stated before has no connection.

---

Do note that Adrian II is not demanding scientific proof here. Instead, he's sending out a challenge for the believers to prove God philosophically. Semantics, ideas, concepts, logics, debates and discussions on theoretical and perhaps theological grounds; all those tools of the mind not necessarily existing in the physical universe.

To think of what he's demanding, think of the works of Thomas Aquinas and the like, where men try to "prove" God by referring to the necessity of God existing. Adrian is saying that he will, using the same tools, prove you (and these people?) wrong.

And before you chime in, note also that he made clear that he thinks hiding behind "faith" to "explain" everything about the Divine is intellectually dishonest. It's particularly suspicious if the "incomprehensible" somehow also have recognizable (and thus comprehensible) physical manifestations: Holy Texts, sites of worship, rites and traditions, morals and ethics, etc.

Me, I'll keep my opinion to myself, though I do like reading a God debate or two when people actually say something new.

Ah philosiphy, you could've just said that you know (Adrian)...

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible? much better than arguing where no one will accept the others point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible? much better than arguing where no one will accept the others point.

---

The Bible doesn't prove God philosophically...

It doesn't even make an attempt. :book:

I wonder if Pindar's old thread is still around? That'd be an example of what Adrian wants. And what I want to read I guess, if I can understand what they're saying (lol). ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

The Bible doesn't prove God philosophically...

It doesn't even make an attempt. :book:

---

Oh God is love, He is this, He is that, reason for the season...

is that it (is that what ur askin' for?) cuz its gotta be there somewhere, how much have you read?

Quote:

---

Why dont you just go to church or read the Bible?

---

Cossack why didn't you go up and work on the big dig ?
You could've made big money up ther digging someone else a big hole , here you done dig yourself into a pit for free .
So \now then Cossack what do you want to tel me about the bible and which bible is it you want to tell me about .
It is after all the absolute truth so there must onlybe one version:idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Cossack why didn't you go up and work on the big dig ?
You could've made big money up ther digging someone else a big hole , here you done dig yourself into a pit for free .
So \now then Cossack what do you want to tel me about the bible and which bible is it you want to tell me about .
It is after all the absolute truth so there must onlybe one version:idea2:

---

are you drunk?:laugh4:

maybe you'll make more sense then usual. I didnt say "read the bible because it is all powerful and people should follow it to the extreme"

I just said if you want to --know-- more about God why not go to church or read the bible instead of askin' me? I was jus' here arguin' with Adrian over the -existence- of God.

But if you must know its title is "The New American Bible"(I'm Catholic). And I would like to talk to you about, Proverbs18, chp18, line 2

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

are you drunk?:laugh4:

maybe you'll make more sense then usual. I didnt say "read the bible because it is all powerful and people should follow it to the extreme"

I just said if you want to --know-- more about God why not go to church or read the bible instead of askin' me? I was jus' here arguin' with Adrian over the -existence- of God.

But if you must know its title is "The New American Bible"(I'm Catholic). And I would like to talk to you about, Proverbs18, chp18, line 2

"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"

---

Because it is unknown whether what the bible states is true or false nor can church-going provide us with the truth. It is mostly still merely based on belief which does not equal or lead to truth.

For the second bolding: I do not mean to offend; that bolded phrase seems to apply to you. And it seems to be applicable to many who believe in God and/or take the bible seriously.

So far, I have no choice but to favour Adrian's words. And by the way, since it occurred to me once again -- the mention of Pindar's post(s) -- I am curious what he had to say. I might have seen it already though... I think I have but it is mostly forgotten.

Thing is we can be more or less CERTAIN about the physical reality. Logic, science, and so on, are true and/or logically consistent and fair. What is faith, what is belief, what is religion? We just believe in "something" and be done with it? Try to use illogical reasoning to prove points? Pfff, not me, and any other rational person should not either. There are good reasons why logic exists and one of them is that it can provide clear unbiased correct thought, premises and conclusions, and so on, all done within the logical "objective" realm.

If you stand before a gunman who wields a submachine gun at close range and he shoots to hit you but he misses wasting the whole magazine, would you call this a miracle of God? Would you call this d'vine intervention? If yes, then why? You would base it on your belief? Belief # Truth.

Well obviously Bijo, you did not have to point out which side you're taking as we all already know~D

So its untrue whether the bible states is true or false... Bijo a seriously doubt a man of your 'belief' actually read the bible. Is it untrue that the Assyrians attacked Israel? or the Babylonians? Or the life of Solomon he never existed? all these the bible mentions (so solomon talked to God, meaning he's is false? well our last pope John Paul II claimed to have spoke with God, does that mean he never existed?).

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.

And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.

Yes amazed that you found that peice of wisdom in the bible?

confucius say "~D "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

So its untrue whether the bible states is true or false... Bijo a seriously doubt a man of your 'belief' actually read the bible. Is it untrue that the Assyrians attacked Israel? or the Babylonians? Or the life of Solomon he never existed? all these the bible mentions (so solomon talked to God, meaning he's is false? well our last pope John Paul II claimed to have spoke with God, does that mean he never existed?).

---

What? no, what is claimed is that - though these people did exist - the "fact" that they talked to God is a lie. Further - I can't think of any reason why the Pope would lie about talking to God... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.

---

You clearly don't understand why Atheists don't believe in God. It is because they don't believe in God. Each Atheist has their own individual reasons as to why this is. Can you clarify your statement "everything... has at least 1 identifiably thing that makes it real and true". That doesn't seem to prove anything at all.

Also, I would think that science could give us far more than Religion ever could. It certainly has in the past.

Whether you believe in God or not seems almost hardwired, actually. Atheists tend to be people without faith. I.e. they need some form of proof, they are inherently intellectual and logical. Some are also control freaks, they can't let go of the illusion that they control their own destiny.

At the end of the day belief in God ignores proof and in fact Augustine, Boethius and Aquinus all base their arguements on the precondition that God exists, they even have the grace to admit it sometimes.

Any arguement used to prove the existence of God can be turned around and used to disprove His existence, but you can then turn the arguement around again.

So the scales are balanced. Further, much of Christian catholic orthodoxy post-dates the apostles, let alone Jesus. The Bible itself comes from what the far-right call the "Early post-Apostolic".

So what are you looking for Adrian, Bijo, et al? A crutch to support faith?

There isn't one unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

And I understand why atheists dont believe in God, I thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least 1 identifiable thing that makes it real and true, thats why I found out God exists thru religion not science and those will never co-exist. And I dont believe God is any faker then, nor now.

---

It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.

Quote:

---

And if all bullets missed in your last question? I would think its a miracle, anybody would.

---

The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.


The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

---

Thays not how I discovered God, I said that everything in the universe can be identified etc. God cannot be scientificaly indentified etc. maybe thats why athiests are atheists... 'cause they want scientific proof.

Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.

Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:

see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.

Wheres Adrain? oh well.... and am I the only one of the few here that defends religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Can you clarify your statement "everything... has at least 1 identifiably thing that makes it real and true". That doesn't seem to prove anything at all.

Also etc. etc.

---

Yes it does. How do you identify grass? touch. How do you identify light? sight. etc even proven thru cause and effect.

I distinctly remember something about a debate on "Does God exist?" coming our way...
What is status on this one?

There are some pointers in this thread for whoever takes up the atheist argument...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

Yes it does. How do you identify grass? touch. How do you identify light? sight. etc even proven thru cause and effect.

---

Alright, I'm with you so far, but how did this help you to find God? Surely it would persuade you otherwise because there is nothing tangible about any God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

Thays not how I discovered God, I said that everything in the universe can be identified etc. God cannot be scientificaly indentified etc. maybe thats why athiests are atheists... 'cause they want scientific proof.

---

That's not how you discovered God? Then why did you state it in that post I replied to before? Could it be a lack of formulation skill? Are you now quickly trying to correct it?

Quote:

---

Yes it is a miracle from God IMO.

---

Illogical. When a person says 'something IS....' he is making a claim as if he would be objective, factual, and logical. If it is your OPINION/BELIEF then don't use the construction 'X = ....' but rather make it like... "I believe the case to be..." or "I opine that...." or "I believe that..."

It is as if you state your opinion or b'lief and simultaneously state it is FACT. Your phrase could've been less misleading if you put the 'IMO' first but even then....

In any case, again, the question remains: "IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain while disregarding beliefs and/or opinions?" Just provide an objective answer. You would find that the most likely answer would be "I don't know." or something like that. And why would it be that? Because you simply don't know.

Quote:

---

Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he? but its always the evil that counts?:inquisitive:

---

First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him.

He is believed to be allpowerful, almighty, to have ultimate power and control. If this is true, why did He not create the perfect world? For Christ's sake, He's God! GOD! If He has/had ultimate power, He could've made everything perfect, peaceful, and so on, but noooooo.... apparantly He chose evil. THAT is a damn good reason to HATE Him if one believes in Him.

Quote:

---

see that is what I mean about that little piece of wisdom I showed you. You dont want to UNDERSTAND why people believe in God, but just show why YOU (and other athiest) dont. I'm tellin' you just go to church and find some understanding about why we believe and be open to other possible truths instead of staying with one forever.

---

You are stating I am an atheist? You are stating I don't understand why they believe in God? You don't know much of me. I have seen **** from different sides. Don't put words into my mouth. Looks like sensational talk to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

It is illogical. You are making statements as if they are true. You thought about it long and hard and everything in this universe has at least one identifiable thing making it true? That is how you discovered God exists? Through religion? It does not compute.

Also, let me remind you that religion and science have been coexisting for quite some time: they exist(ed) simultaneously.


The question is "IS it a miracle from God?" The only choices are "Yes" and "No", and then the most reasonable answer would be "No". It doesn't matter what you think -- or anyone thinks -- of it. IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain?

And while I'm at it, let me kindly ask you a question. Would you like to believe in this God who allows evil? A God who allows pain, suffering, torment, hunger, starvation, conflict, and so on? Well, you could. Let me tell you that IF you believe in Him, it would make much sense to HATE Him as well.

And to Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla: I am not necessarily looking for that (a crutch to support faith). I merely wish to point out it is irrational to believe in God and it is foolish (or insert another fitting word) to praise Him and/or even LOVE Him.

There were many times people told me they loved God and that they can sense His presence. How can they love God for allowing evil to exist and for probably being evil Himself? And how are they so certain that what they "feel" or "sense" is actually God the allpowerful divine entity they believe in whose existence is still uncertain?

I say believe what you want, but be aware that -- again -- BELIEF # TRUTH.

---

Rather than respond directly I'd like to draw your attention back to your own conclusions. You say it is irrational to believe in God, fine, I would agree with that, but rationallity and logic are human constructs. It's not rational or logical to fall in love either but I'd rather be in love with someone before I married her.

All your examples are dependant on your perception of good and evil, you also make concrete claims that are no more supportable than those make by Christians or Muslims.

Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.

The whole thing grinds to a halt at that point, anyway.

You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The whole thing grinds to a halt at that point, anyway.

You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.

---

Exactly why these sort of debates have a very, very high tendency to go absolutely NOWHERE. Faith is faith, and its all based on each person's perspective. Whether that faith is in science or logic or rhetoric or religion or whatever, its usually very difficult to sway it in an online forum.

Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Rather than respond directly I'd like to draw your attention back to your own conclusions. You say it is irrational to believe in God, fine, I would agree with that, but rationallity and logic are human constructs. It's not rational or logical to fall in love either but I'd rather be in love with someone before I married her.

---

You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.

Quote:

---

Here's a big hole in your arguement: you say the existence of God is uncertain, I say it isn't.

---

Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?

Quote:

---

You're working from an atheist perspective and your thinking is as biased as mine.

---

Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Why did you not reply to my previous post? Why direct my attention to an old post?


You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.


Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?


Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain one´s perception of reality. Based on this perception of reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:

---

Fixed that for you.:yes: The role of science is to help us understand the surrounding universe, not to make absolute statements, like religious writings tend to do sometimes, which takes away their scientific value. Why is it so hard to part realm of science and parts of universe that science cant proof or disapprove from each other?
Science should be science and religion be religion. Unfortunately to some religion can become science and science become an religion, which in my humble view should be avoided at all cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

That's not how you discovered God? Then why did you state it in that post I replied to before? Could it be a lack of formulation skill? Are you now quickly trying to correct it?


Illogical. When a person says 'something IS....' he is making a claim as if he would be objective, factual, and logical. If it is your OPINION/BELIEF then don't use the construction 'X = ....' but rather make it like... "I believe the case to be..." or "I opine that...." or "I believe that..."

It is as if you state your opinion or b'lief and simultaneously state it is FACT. Your phrase could've been less misleading if you put the 'IMO' first but even then....

In any case, again, the question remains: "IS it a miracle from God whose existence is uncertain while disregarding beliefs and/or opinions?" Just provide an objective answer. You would find that the most likely answer would be "I don't know." or something like that. And why would it be that? Because you simply don't know.



First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him.

He is believed to be allpowerful, almighty, to have ultimate power and control. If this is true, why did He not create the perfect world? For Christ's sake, He's God! GOD! If He has/had ultimate power, He could've made everything perfect, peaceful, and so on, but noooooo.... apparantly He chose evil. THAT is a damn good reason to HATE Him if one believes in Him.


You are stating I am an atheist? You are stating I don't understand why they believe in God? You don't know much of me. I have seen **** from different sides. Don't put words into my mouth. Looks like sensational talk to me.

---

1st yes lack of re'reading what I wrote, thus many grammar errors.

2nd yes I 'believe' it to be factual (miracle from God, cant a christian do that?). Just like I 'believe' 1+1=2.

3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )

4th um YES I'm stating your an atheist, hmm if you find it illogical to believe in God then I guess you DONT!!! this is pretty much all I have to know of you to type this:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bijo

Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic.

---

Our esteemed colleague Pindar put forward a very interesting logical proof of God (or at least, a necessary being) which confounded most of us who challenged him. Sadly, neither can I find the thread nor have we heard from him for some while - but I have found a version of the proof.

A contingent being exists (a contingent being is such that if it exists, it can not-exist).

This contingent being has a cause or explanation of its existence.

The cause or explanation of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Contingent beings alone cannot cause or explain the existence of a contingent being.

Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Therefore, a necessary being (a being which, if it exists, cannot not exist) exists.

Now, I'm not a logician like Pindar, but I found it very elegant and tough to dismiss. On further reading, I discovered Kant (among others) framed a rebuttal, but it's still elegant.