Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 02-21-2003, 05:43 PM

Scottyman:

Quote:

I understand now why theological minded people like you are really here. You are not here to understand why people like me don't believe. You are here to save us heathens. You think by bogging the conversation down with ridiculous arguments and obvious diversions that some of us might say, " yeah well, I guess there could be a god", but you still haven't answered the main question that we all want to know.

You know, if you want to know why I am here you can ask me.

Quote:

WHERE IS THE PROOF?

If you want to start a thread listing proofs and evidences for the existence of God, I'm all for it. I'll make my best case.

However, this is not what this thread was about. I don't know if I have "proof", but I do have evidence. I'd be happy to reveal it to you on a post of that nature. On this thread, again, I only entered to challenge what I felt was a fallacy.

Quote:

"God" offers us no such evidence. We can't feel, see, touch or hear him/her/it.

I disagree.

Quote:

We can only base our beliefs on one persons opinion to another and it's not sufficient

I disagree.

Quote:

Can you give one solid piece of evidence that proves that a non-material supposedly all knowing being that controls the fate of not only us but the universe as well?

I can do my best. Whenever you're ready. But it is rather a large digression to come onto this thread and enter into a full blown defense of the existence of God.

Philosoft:

Quote:

We have options when debating Jobar's existence beyond mere assertion. Impractical options, perhaps, but options nonetheless. The God you apparently believe in has been defined precisely to eliminate any non-faith options I might have used to determine his existence.

That's not true. Many people believe in God via some version of the cosmological or teleological argument. (I, myself, have never been tempted by atheism largely because I am not a big believer in beneficial accidents.)

Christianity says that one must enter into a relationship with God through faith, but people can (and do) believe in God for a variety of reasons which do not involve faith. Personally, I have no faith in a causeless universe or in the possibility of infinite regression. That is one of the reasons I believe in God. That's just an example.

Quote:

I think it's eminently reasonable, however, not even to consider God's existence until such time as the conflicting accounts can be objectively reconciled.

I don't. Seriously. There is no good reason to assume that because people describe X differently, X does not exist.

Quote:

Problem: I can't ever tell the difference between his voice and mine.

He doesn't have to answer you by a voice in your head. I dare say He probably wouldn't do so, with a person like you (who is having trouble believing).

Scottyman (again):

Quote:

I appreciate what you are saying Jobar. I just can't stand this argument and the comparison that Luvluv made equating that with it's physical corolation. There's simply no comparison.

The original argument had nothing to do with physical existence or verifiable characterstics. It had to do solely with seemingly contradictory descriptions of an entity. Thus, the analogy is perfectly valid. We cannot say, because two human beings describe an entity differently, that ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENT DESCRIPTIONS said entity does not exist. You are essentially saying that if we add the additional factor that said entity is non-physical, that is more reason to believe that this entity does not exist. That is a seperate argument from the point I was making. (And, I think, still a fallacious one. You and I might describe communism differently, communism is not physical, and yet communism exists.)

From the original topic of this debate, the analogy I used was perfectly valid. If you want to add the premise of physicality, that would change the debate. But as it was not a part of the original topic, a physical to non-physical analogy is totally consistent.

Quote:

There's also no comparison to spanking a child for misbehaving and a god that murders children on a massive scale. I was raised in a Christian enviroment and I never understood why our church didn't want us to read the old testament. It's obvious to me now. How a religious movement can so blatently ignore one of the more significant parts of the bible is beyond my comprehension. It's obvious that religions want to pick and choose what parts of the bible are ok to believe in but if you read most of the passages in the old testament it's very clear that your "god" is not a loving and caring "god". He/she/it is a spiteful, revengful, jealous, murderous, keniving freak and I'll have no child of mine growing up believing in such a monster.

With all due respect, at this point you are just ranting. What exactly are we here to discuss? This debate simply cannot continue if you want to broach such disparate arguments all in one thread. First I am asked to prove the existence of God, and now I am asked to defend as unwieldly an entity as the ENTIRE Old Testament. Let's narrow this down.

Jobar · 02-21-2003, 09:22 PM

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"God" offers us no such evidence. We can't feel, see, touch or hear him/her/it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can only base our beliefs on one persons opinion to another and it's not sufficient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you give one solid piece of evidence that proves that a non-material supposedly all knowing being that controls the fate of not only us but the universe as well?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can do my best. Whenever you're ready. But it is rather a large digression to come onto this thread and enter into a full blown defense of the existence of God.

Luvluv, if you think you can do this, you do it where ever you wish. Here, or in a thread of your own making. This whole forum, after all, is an appropriate venue.

But you should know better than to make such a claim. After all the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of words you have offered us, if you truly had *solid* evidence, by now you would have proved it. However convincing you find your own experience, none of us find it so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2003, 09:22 PM	#32
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "God" offers us no such evidence. We can't feel, see, touch or hear him/her/it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We can only base our beliefs on one persons opinion to another and it's not sufficient ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you give one solid piece of evidence that proves that a non-material supposedly all knowing being that controls the fate of not only us but the universe as well? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can do my best. Whenever you're ready. But it is rather a large digression to come onto this thread and enter into a full blown defense of the existence of God. Luvluv, if you think you can do this, you do it where ever you wish. Here, or in a thread of your own making. This whole forum, after all, is an appropriate venue. But you should know better than to make such a claim. After all the tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of words you have offered us, if you truly had solid evidence, by now you would have proved it. However convincing you find your own experience, none of us find it so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.