Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 08-12-2003, 06:18 PM

RTS:
Faith in the belief is the most important aspect in a definitional system, and evidence is either only something to be manipulated to support their definitional beliefs or something to be ignored.

True, and true, and true. I see it's so here in this forum, on a daily basis.

Welcome to Internet Infidels, RTS. I think you will enjoy it.

Heathen Dawn · 08-13-2003, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton
You are forgetting that by you using the capital G, and considering that Romans has been quoted, it must be the Christian God. Therefore, by you referencing the Christian God, you are to use at least the definition of eternity/origin for that God.

So, what I am saying is that, by definition, God cannot be evidence of anything other than Himself. That is why your question of "what is God evidence of" does not lead to what you thought it would lead to.

Unless you want to use a Mormon type of God, where there are gods after gods--where we would later become Gods ourselves and have our own world to rule, etc.

No, I am making a philosophical point independent of the Biblical god or the Mormon god or polytheistic gods.

The argument: the universe points to an external reality (god or gods) that underlies it.

The counter-question: so why doesn't this external reality (god or gods) point to a superexternal reality (meta-god or meta-gods) that underlies it?

You close the ad infinitum road by saying, "stop at God". And I say against that, "just stop at the universe". The universe is evidence for nothing but itself. It just is. There is no need to assume a god or gods underlying it. Such a claim can only be backed by evidence, not by an axiomatic assumption (X points to Y).

SignOfTheCross · 08-13-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlessNot
Why have all the rational arguments for the existence of God seemed to have been successfully refuted?

Like?

As I understand there are no successful refutations of God's existence, unless you can prove so with facts.

Mere subjective reasoning does not constitute a successful refutation.

Quote:

If God exists, is it unreasonable to suppose that there would be at least one irrefutable proof of his existence?

Okay, lets use this example. We (humans) are evidence of God's existence. Evolution isn't a successful refutation of God's existence since as a theory is just that, a theory.

Quote:

Why do theists say that the existence of god is "self evident" ?

Probably for the same reason thousands of cultures have throughout history.

Quote:

Does it have something to do with what Paul wrote:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
Romans 1:20

Paul is saying God created the world in such a way that we would be without excuse should we not believe in Him.

Peace,
SOTC

Spenser · 08-13-2003, 08:19 AM

SOTC,

I have to ask; Are you a YEC?

Alan N · 08-13-2003, 08:31 AM

Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes�his eternal power and divine nature�have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

So his invisible attributes are clearly seen? Apparently 'clearly seen' in this context means "if you want to see it that way, it will be clear to you".

You say toe-mate-o, I say ta-maht-o.

BlessNot · 08-13-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Like?As I understand there are no successful refutations of God's existence, unless you can prove so with facts.

Mere subjective reasoning does not constitute a successful refutation.

What facts do you have that he exists other than faith ? Like I said in my OP, his presence was very evident in Genesis and the OT, so why all the silence of his presence today? Could it be because men have run out of options to create another god in their image?

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Okay, lets use this example. We (humans) are evidence of God's existence. Evolution isn't a successful refutation of God's existence since as a theory is just that, a theory.

I would say that evolution is more then just a theory it is more of a scientific fact. What evidence are you using to proove we were created in god's image, the story of Adam and Eve? BTW, did god create them as adults with no brain capacity? It seems like if they were adults, he created them clueless and ignorant. They didn't know right from wrong. hmmm.... I think we humans are evidence that we evolved and were not created.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Why do theists say that the existence of god is "self evident" ?

Probably for the same reason thousands of cultures have throughout history.

I believe that primitive men started religion and belief in a deity when they witnessed the first bolt of lightening. Is that self evident enough for you? It must have been for them too. Ignorance found god a long time ago, so it seems to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Paul is saying God created the world in such a way that we would be without excuse should we not believe in Him.

Do you think that hurricanes, tornadoes and storms is evidence of god creating the universe? Is that the sign of perfection?
I think not. And what is this "such a way" that he created it that causes us to be without an excuse?

Alan N · 08-13-2003, 08:51 AM

The 'creation' is only evidence of the 'creation', not of god. A bird sitting on a limb is evidence that there is a bird sitting on a limb, not that there are invisible (but clear

) divine powers manifest in the molecules and forces that brought the bird into existence.

SignOfTheCross · 08-13-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
SOTC,

I have to ask; Are you a YEC?

No.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 08-13-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alan N
Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes�his eternal power and divine nature�have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

So his invisible attributes are clearly seen? Apparently 'clearly seen' in this context means "if you want to see it that way, it will be clear to you".

You say toe-mate-o, I say ta-maht-o.

I think it means, we can't see God's physical attributes with our own eyes, but we can see what He's made.

Peace,
SOTC

Milton · 08-13-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlessNot
His existence can be successfully refuted by simply reading the bible itself starting at Genesis. One can see plainly that back then there is plenty of evidence of miracles. We see an entire universe being formed out of nothing, the sun and the moon, the stars, the firmament, light appearing out of nowhere, man being created out of the dust of the earth, a woman being created from Adam's ribs, not only that but the first couple had constant communication with their creator who even walked with them in the garden even after they were kicked out for supposedly disobeying his orders to not eat the forbidden fruit.

As time moves forward the OT seems to have less miraculas activity but God still seems to be around. Moses has some conversations with god at the burning bush that never really becomes consumed from the flames.

I could go on but I am trying to keep it brief, but do you see a pattern taking place here?

It seems to me that god's existence might be self-evident in the beginning of the bible and the OT but for some reason he becomes very silent for a couple hundred years after the OT is completed.

And so it is today, where is the evidence of his presence? It seems like divine activity is non-existent.

Why don't we see God manifest in the world around us anymore?

Why are believers of today so willing to be forced to settle for just feeling god in their hearts, when people of bible times had more solid proof and evidence ?

The common objection today is that we are supposed to have faith without any proof or evidence.

If that is the case, then why did god show himself literally to those of old bible times?

I don't say that 'I feel God in my heart', I am not used to using such language. Eventhough I know spirituality is good, I admittedly accept my lack of much of it.

I look at the world, and whatever there is, cause and effect, and I don't find any logical explanation as to WHY things have to be the way are. I find it infinitely difficult to believe that anything has to happen, and that in a world of randomness, there can be such order as 'cause and effect.' Of course, cause and effect is not all that I think about when thinking of God, but it is one of the concepts I think of the most.

As far as the miracles and absence of it, I do find it not so encouraging, but I don't think that it is reason to push me away, and think that there is no logical way of accepting it. I find almost as equally important that God communicated things to us in advance (i.e., prophecies), and the fulfillment of those are the ones that give me support.

Also, many like to say that stories in the Bible were taken from other myths, therefore the stories themselves are myths and should not be taken as historical or at all factual. This, of course, is an argument based on personal interpretation. The same as they can say that they are all myths, I can argue that the fact that they are shared accross cultures and peoples, is evidence that the story was common knowledge (or true) at some point in time. That it became corrupted by some, while preserved by others does not make the story any less true. A comeback to that would be the overly outplayed "popularity does not make truth." But does that mean that truth cannot be shared by all or most people? No. Therefore my argument is not appealing to popularity, but it simply shows that the evidence works (better?) for me too.

08-13-2003, 08:19 AM	#14
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Wondering SOTC, I have to ask; Are you a YEC?

08-13-2003, 08:31 AM	#15
Alan N Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 68	Deism Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes�his eternal power and divine nature�have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. So his invisible attributes are clearly seen? Apparently 'clearly seen' in this context means "if you want to see it that way, it will be clear to you". You say toe-mate-o, I say ta-maht-o.

08-13-2003, 08:51 AM	#17
Alan N Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 68	Evidence of itself The 'creation' is only evidence of the 'creation', not of god. A bird sitting on a limb is evidence that there is a bird sitting on a limb, not that there are invisible (but clear ) divine powers manifest in the molecules and forces that brought the bird into existence.

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

08-12-2003, 06:18 PM	#11
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	RTS: Faith in the belief is the most important aspect in a definitional system, and evidence is either only something to be manipulated to support their definitional beliefs or something to be ignored. True, and true, and true. I see it's so here in this forum, on a daily basis. Welcome to Internet Infidels, RTS. I think you will enjoy it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.