The Dagda

Well said. I think you just made a good point there about how its possible yes possible to be an atheist and still be true to your reason without having the onus on you to prove God exists, or even bother to prove he doesn't.

sschlichter

Do you see something wrong with what you see in nature? Is that what you are saying?

spin

Look at the development. You made an assumption about the writers of the first christian literature. Feeling that the assumption wasn't founded on fact, I challenged it. I didn't provide a position that I held. I even supplied a few alternatives for you to think about, so that you didn't need to walk down a path because it was the only one you'd seen. I don't think enough evidence exists to make a reasoned analysis on the subject, so the choice for you would be to ignore my challenge or to attempt to support your position. (This is a deja vu discourse. And you don't have to know anything about Elijah: it's sufficient to know that you are not alone in publicly making unfounded conjectures then switching the subject onto the other person's views of the material.)


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Don't you? Are you pleased that some animals have to kill other animals in order to survive, and sometimes kill people for food?

The Dagda

He's saying that the nature of God is incomplete. I think Thomas Aquinas said it best when he said God was not reconcilable with logic and at the same time not subject to it. This tautology lead to the ontological argument. Something he himself said was only consistent if you accepted God exists. There in was his genius and the problem he had with reason. Hence he concluded like most that faith was essential to any conclusion about God the opposite of agnosticism where faith is irelevent. And a counter to gnosticism where God is unknowable and must be so to exist, truth was determined by mythology not by science and proofs.

spin

Viruses, bacteria, earthquakes, tidal waves, fleas, cockroaches, mosquitoes, hurricanes, droughts, landslides, and a host of other things. Nature can look pretty sick or sickening. So, if "God's attributes are clearly visible in nature", they don't reflect well on god. As to human conscience, the majority of Americans sent Bush back to Iraq to kill more Iraqis, devastate their land, destroy their infrastructure and torture them. Good christian acts, right?

Your arguments for your god aren't really food for this forum and have long ago been debunked.


spin

sschlichter

Martians wrote the book of John is an alternative as well. It Why posit it though? I have had this conversation before on this site as well and it got nowhere. I am certainly not going to blame you for that waste of time. Why assume that I have not considered the possibilities that I have already granted are possibilities and then jump on me when I ask for reasons that you might offer your alternative.

Thank you, but someone else has already graciously offered to walk me thru what is assumed to be cognitive dissonance on this subject if that was your intention.

~Steve

sschlichter

It is interesting that you see those things as wrong as if you expected something different. what would make you expect otherwise if those things were natural? you are citing man killing other men as something evil. why would you think that?

your answer seems like a good case to me that you think things are not as they should be.

The Dagda

Let's simplify this argument by saying that things are not as good as they should be if God exists.

James Brown

All I'm saying is, are those really God's attributes? In other words, you didn't answer my question. What I expect nature to be like is irrelevant.