DarkBronzePlant

AF,

I'll agree that it is possibly for a god to exist. Mainly because I'm anxiously awaiting your next step: proof that god exists.

MOJO-JOJO

Atticus.....in your introduction I got the impression you were going to unload something completely new and original on this board as an argument. Your points have been debated ad naseum thoughout the SecWeb.

You can not prove that God or any other divine, supernatural invisible "force" exists, or was the first cause, or any such nonsense, by these arguments. Atheists can not DISprove that a God exists, other than through reason, which theists block out (which is why they are theists).

All that you can corroborate with your argument is that (1) mankind needs to have an answer to everything, even if it's wrong, and (2) mankind has a vivid imagination, which helps him take care of his need in number(1).

WJ

Finch!

Agreed, it would be 'logically consistent'. It would also be logically consistent for a theist to say it is one's own choice to have a personal relationship with God!

To say things like the folowing, contradict the atheists position:

"As much as theists would like to obscure the issue, the fact remains that atheists live in such a way that works for them. If left alone, theism would likely rarely be an issue. Too bad, in reality, theists insecurity prevents this from being possible. This thread is a good example of that."

Get it?

Man's own interpretation of the purpose for Religion gave God a bad name. To that end, and worse yet, if you don't have the personal calling to sell God, then don't attempt to personally sell Atheism either- both will sound unconvincing.

Walrus
------------
Atheism is just another Religion

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Bill Snedden

I wouldn't say that's completely accurate. Certainly something has always existed. This must be true because something exists now and ex nihilo, nihil fit would certainly seem to be a valid principle.

The question remains, does this something have personality and intention or not? In other words, is it "god", or just "the universe" (or "reality" or "existence"). Theists answer "god", while atheists and agnostics generally hold that there is insufficient evidence to do so.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

This is the same "proof" used to prove the bible is true. The bible is true because the bible SAYS it's true, is not a valid argument. You set the "laws" for what you believe then demonstrate how what you say is supported by those laws.

You can not be logically consistent about that which you say or hold to be true, when there is no way to prove evidentially that beliefs in "god" or the supernatural are true. You could tell us that Santa Claus is real with the same kind of reasoning, and we could ask that YOU accept that the Invisble Pink Unicorn is lord and savior of all mankind with this same argument. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Kvalhion

Oh really? And simply because you say so then it must be true? You really must be used to making positive assertions without being able to back them up.

Perhaps you would have even a little credibility by providing an example of how such a statement is "inconsistent".

My assertion is that atheists live in such a fashion where they do not find it necessary to change their behavior patterns to incorporate something they lack belief in. Theists, on the other hand, often take the perspective that such people just haven't heard the good news and that it is their duty to intervene.

If you wish to discuss points I bring up, fine. Otherwise, please cease your stupid cheerleading bullshit that adds nothing to the discussion.

Philosoft

Congratulations. You have managed to convey zero concepts and even less meaning. You know, being grammatically correct isn't all there is to writing.

<strong> I am becoming ad nauseated by this.

sidewinder

1. But you cannot state for a fact where matter came from either. You choose to believe that it came from a divine, eternal being and you have no evidence to prove it. You are saying that since we don't have an explanation for the origin of matter that we must believe it came from a divine, eternal being but you are wrong. There is no reason to believe it came from such a being, unless you can provide evidence otherwise.


How are you consistent? You chose one possible explanation over another, and I would say it's a poor choice considering there's no evidence for it. Further, you didn't answer half the posts in here which addressed your original point. Can't wait to hear how the Bible is going to convince us that you are correct. We've never heard that before.

Godless Sodomite

I've already concluded that christianity is nothing but a load of twaddle, so if you're interested in presenting a god for worship, you'd better have a lot more up your sleeve than Jesus. Maybe other, less convinced, participants and spectators will have interest in that debate. Beware though, nothing you've presented is anything new and if you continue along the same old lines, be prepared to be thoroughly trounced. There was another ambitious theist on these boards about a year ago who attempted to do the same thing you're doing--making premises and getting participants to agree to each point individually before proceeding to the next. The thread went on for many pages and the proof never got anywhere.

-Jerry

Eudaimonist

This is not an article of faith. It is merely the most rational position I know given logic and observation. I am willing to revise my views given sufficient evidence and argument.

Why can't we say Existence is eternal? An eternal Existence doesn't require any supernatural intervention.

Not so. We merely agree that one may imagine that God exists. God is an imaginary possibility. However, God is not necessarily an established rational possibility, which would require more evidence than one's powers of imagination.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Eudaimonia ]</p>