Vorkosigan

Don't need it. You're the one making the positive claim, you supply the evidence for the existence of the Canaanite Sky god YHWH.

Don't shout. It's rude.

Michael

Draygomb

Moiii

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000081" target="_blank">Proof</a>

Pangea

Ick, way back in the day, when I was xtian and went to church, they had a hallway with homemade inspirational "words of wisdom" every two feet (lest you lose your resolve between Sunday School and worship service). One of them said "Faith is not belief without proof but trust without reservation". Gag! See the second part doesn't make the first part true. I never even questioned it the whole time I went there. Seemed perfectly reasonable. That's called brainwashing. All I can say is question everything. If god is god, he'll stand up to closer scrutiny. Faith, bah humbug.

Wyrdsmyth

moiii,

If the effects of God were as obvious as the effects of gravity, then we wouldn't be having a discussion about faith. That's what obvious means -- apparent to anybody. If something is obvious, then you wouldn't say it takes faith to believe it. We don't argue about whether gravity exists or not, because it is obvious. We feel and experience it, and we know what an environment is like with lower gravity (as per the astronauts in space-walks).

I think faith is a big con. Religion has a double-blind going on. They claim to have proof, but they say you also need faith to believe. In other words it's as if they are admitting what they preach is indeed difficult to believe, and so faith is needed to overcome that obstacle. Yet, many still argue that there is indeed proof of his existence, for example the events of the Bible, miracles, and so forth, which would seem to obviate the need for faith.

People often attribute coincidences or unexplained phenomena as being evidence that god exists. But this is just bad apologetics, "god of the gaps." The final Big Gap is the origin of the universe and life and existence itself. It is the last refuge of apologetics. Waving your arms around and saying the entire universe itself is obvious evidence for god (and non-believers just can't see it, or don't want to see it) is the last straw.

What ever happened to creating loaves and fishes, or riding around in a fiery chariot, or healing the sick? All theists give us nowadays are bad metaphysical arguments and presuppositionalism!

How 'bout them miracles!?!?!

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Godless Sodomite

Why won't you understand that we don't have anything to prove? Here we all are going about our lives when you come along talking about "god." It's completely up to you to persuade us that your ideas are correct.

So far, in my 34-years, none of the supposed evidence for this "god" that people like you speak of can be considered proof of anything. There are things about life, the universe, and everything that we do not know--putting "god" at the end of the equation doesn't explain or prove anything. Why would anyone be satisfied with explaining a mystery with a mystery? That is not knowledge.

If you don't want to accept the world as it is, there's very little that we can do about that. But making bold assertions about the existence of a supernatural "god" who crumbles into incoherence when trying to pinpoint its definition because it makes you more comfortable if everyone believed the same as you says nothing about the reality of this "god."

Until you can offer proof of the existence of "god," we will remain unbelievers. Once again, we have nothing to prove. If this "god" were as evident as you claim, why are you (and everyone else who has such claims) having such a hard time proving its existence? Why reverse the burden of proof? Absent this proof, the only logical thing to do is to remain atheist.

And, for the record, the christian god has specific attributes that have been given to him by followers. Read the postings on this forum and you'll learn rather quickly that most of these attributes are mutually exclusive. This is either proof that that particular god does not exist, or proof that this god has been misattributed and causes the theist to retreat into the position of agnosticism or cognitive dissonance.

-Jerry

Eudaimonist

Interesting that God is a jealous god, and even names himself Jealous. God must not have agape then.

Amos

Good point and means that God does not tolerate perversion of natural law much the same as that we cqannot change the law of gravity.

Amos

All sentient beings are rational beings and all animals, including man, has a rational and a non rational mind. It is just simply true that a rational mind cannot be conceived to exist without there being a non-rational mind because a pair of opposites cannot exist without the other (and this includes the Virgin Birth but not as part of this argument).

Without a non-rational mind we could have no intuition and animals could not have an instinct so now faith becomes an intuit recognition of reality and therefore needs understanding.

Amos

Amos

Because the light of common day is extrapolated from the celestial light just as inspiration is extracted from omniscience, time from eternity, presence from omnipresense, and power from omnipotence. If this was not true sound would exist when there are no ears to hear it.

I don't speak on behalf of Christians and in fact argue against reading the bible.

livius drusus

Amos, I hate to tell you this, but whoever gave you those mushrooms was lying when he said they were portobellos.