What is your god like? (23 Viewers)

[Raz]

I have thoroughly explained the metaphysics of the origin of the universe, the Big Bang theory, etc.. If you go through some of my threads, you are bound to find my arguments.


There are 547 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Any respectable history scholar will not deny this. Among these witnesses were skeptics and enemies.

Where are these evidence of witnesses, besides bible? As far as i know, the bible is real because it was protected or observed by Holy Ghost, so that it is a guarantied real thing, but again, you have to believe in God first for it to be valid evidence. It goes against logic, So for a non believer, who puts rational thought first there is no evidence of Gods existence. So could you name few strong evidence which wouldnt need one to believe in God for them to be real?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

I think what he is trying to say that if we don't have proof for something that doesn't mean its false. (or true)

Like any scientific discovery. They did not have any evidence of things (they didnt yet discover) but that doesnt mean it never existed.

No, it's a trick. You see, JuveRev would love to show with logic that god exists. So on the one hand he's totally game with discussing it on scientific terms, using concepts like evidence. But then science dictates that something which has no evidence is false. Because the person making the claim has to show the evidence.

There is a very good reason for this. You see, science has no interest in disproving every fantasy any human being could ever have. Science is only interested in things that have evidence, and therefore the person making the claim has to bring it. It's enough effort already trying to carefully verify the evidence.

But then JuveRev knows that science isn't on his side, so if all goes wrong he can always go back to the idea that god is "supernatural" (whatever that means) and therefore cannot be detected by science nor understood by humans. But then his scientific proof fails and god has to be taken on faith. So it's backup plan.

 

[rounder]

Where are these evidence of witnesses, besides bible? As far as i know, the bible is real because it was protected or observed by Holy Ghost, so that it is a guarantied real thing, but again, you have to believe in God first for it to be valid evidence. It goes against logic, So for a non believer, who puts rational thought first there is no evidence of Gods existence. So could you name few strong evidence which wouldnt need one to believe in God for them to be real?

There are historical documents that record the ressurection besides the Bible.

No, it's a trick. You see, JuveRev would love to show with logic that god exists. So on the one hand he's totally game with discussing it on scientific terms, using concepts like evidence. But then science dictates that something which has no evidence is false. Because the person making the claim has to show the evidence.

There is a very good reason for this. You see, science has no interest in disproving every fantasy any human being could ever have. Science is only interested in things that have evidence, and therefore the person making the claim has to bring it. It's enough effort already trying to carefully verify the evidence.

But then JuveRev knows that science isn't on his side, so if all goes wrong he can always go back to the idea that god is "supernatural" (whatever that means) and therefore cannot be detected by science nor understood by humans. But then his scientific proof fails and god has to be taken on faith. So it's backup plan.

The problem is that you are not willing to consider, not even for a second that science just might be compatible with religion. In fact, the two are even complementary. The absolutely stunning complexity of life on earth leads you to wonder whether all this is just a mere accident.

I would like to quote Charles Darwin in the later stages of his life when he said,

"The extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."


“It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design….What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved.” - Antony Flew (who up until 2004 was considered one of the world's most influential atheistic philosopher, author, and debator).

"Consider the human eye. The eye is a ball with a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. The eye contains a fantastic watery substance that is replaced every four hours. Tear glands continuously flush the outside clean. An eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist. Eyelashes protect it from dust. And extraordinarily fine tuned muscles are attached to the eye that move the eye and shape the lens for the function of focus." - Charlie Cambell

The eye is more complex and advanced than the world's greatest auto-focus camera, and the camera took millions of dollars and many years for researchers and developers to design and create. Do you believe something as complex as the eye came together by mindless process and random series of accidents?

Another quote from Charles Darwin, this time concerning the eye:

On The Origin of Species (1859) - "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible regard."

Really, in conclusion, I have to say that it seems like it would take a remarkable amount of faith to believe that this amazingly brilliant universe came from absolutely nothing, mere chance, and without any significance and purpose.

None of my arguments are meant to be backup arguments for my faith. They are merely arguments to illustrate the immensely false notion that theism is absurd and irrational.

 

[rounder]

I'll set this one up in the way that you enjoy doing it.

Premise: It is possible to prove non-existence with evidence
Premise: Evidence shows absence of god
Conclusion: god does not exist

Plain and simple. In the alternate case:

Premise: Evidence cannot detect god
Premise: JuveRev tells people to give evidence for god's non-existence
Conclusion: JuveRev is guilty of self contradiction

I cannot imagine more evidence for the existence of God. I think all of us theists alike are satisfied with the amount of evidence we have aquired and need no more.

To prove M does not exist, you must be able to prove that if M did exist, things would be different in M's existence.

To prove that God does not exist, prove to me what exactly would be different if He did exist.

 

[rounder]

I think what he is trying to say that if we don't have proof for something that doesn't mean its false. (or true)

Like any scientific discovery. They did not have any evidence of things (they didnt yet discover) but that doesnt mean it never existed.
.

It's nice to know someone was able to understand.

 

[Martin]

Now you are going off the deep end, I'm not gonna play this game. From the very beginning you are making all the claims so you have to prove all of them, not me. The only claim I made was that god does not exist because the whole idea is a contradiction. And for that I don't even need evidence, simple logic is all I used. And it's not my reasoning, I read it in a book.

We came as close as we'll ever get to agreeing by examining a number of arguments in detail. The fact that you choose to leave that be and return to your original claims does not encourage me (although to be honest it does not awfully surprise me).

Do you really think you have any hope in convincing me by appealing to a god that by your very definition cannot be detected or understood? And then you go on to claim to know and understand him, I mean this stuff is for people with an attention deficit.

This stuff is totally bogus and if the Catholic church couldn't sell it to me when I was a kid and at my most vulnerable, it's not going to work.

 

[rounder]

Now you are going off the deep end, I'm not gonna play this game. From the very beginning you are making all the claims so you have to prove all of them, not me. The only claim I made was that god does not exist because the whole idea is a contradiction. And for that I don't even need evidence, simple logic is all I used. And it's not my reasoning, I read it in a book.

We came as close as we'll ever get to agreeing by examining a number of arguments in detail. The fact that you choose to leave that be and return to your original claims does not encourage me (although to be honest it does not awfully surprise me).

Do you really think you have any hope in convincing me by appealing to a god that by your very definition cannot be detected or understood? And then you go on to claim to know and understand him, I mean this stuff is for people with an attention deficit.

This stuff is totally bogus and if the Catholic church couldn't sell it to me when I was a kid and at my most vulnerable, it's not going to work.

Let me start off by saying fuck the catholic church, they have corrupted the purity and holiness of Christianity.

I will come back to your premises and I will try to explain why sensory evidence does not apply to everything, much less a supernatural being.

I hope you do not limit your understanding of everything in life to science, that would be unintelligible and unfortunate.

Do you agree that there are some things in life we know exist without the need of scientific evidence?

Aesthetic beauty, feelings, passion, love cannot be detected by our senses. We know they exist without needing to prove them scientifically because they are immaterial. I have been trying to explain that scientific evidence can only apply to material things but you refuse to listen.

How can you scientifically prove that your neighbour has a mind? Really, please present me with evidence right now to show me he has a mind. You can't, because something like a mind is not material, therefore science cannot possibly apply to it.

God is a supernatural immaterial being, we cannot apply to our senses to prove his existence. It does not make sense and no, it does not contradict with what I have been saying. I used metaphysical arguments to prove the existence of God, not scientific evidence. I never said anything about recording God on audio, or a digital camera. I used the casuality principle which applies to everything in life to prove that God exists, again, I am not using science.

I used the example of planet panucci. Planets are marterial things thus can be proven and disproven on the basis of scientific experimentation. You asked me to present to you evidence of absence so I did, for material things. I cannot present to you evidence of absence to immaterial things, which is precisely my point.

 

[Raz]

Quick question, if in fact there is a god why do people presume that he is good in nature? not some allpowerfull maniac who just likes to watch people die from diseases, tsunamies and all other stuff that kills people, if god is so good in nature, why would he create such terrible things, and i dont think good god would intend a natural selection.

I realy liked TED talk about nature of god http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

 

[rounder]

Quick question, if in fact there is a god why do people presume that he is good in nature? not some allpowerfull maniac who just likes to watch people die from diseases, tsunamies and all other stuff that kills people, if god is so good in nature, why would he create such terrible things, and i dont think good god would intend a natural selection.

I realy liked TED talk about nature of god http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/tom_honey_on_god_and_the_tsunami.html

The Moral Law is a reason that we presume that this God cares about humanity.
A good find to answer your question.

"If you wanted God to deal with all the evil in the world right now, how do you propose he do that? How does he end the evil and suffering? Well, he would have to put a stop to any act that causes any suffering whatsoever (adulterers, liars, etc.). Wouldn't that mean He would have to put a stop to you too? Have you ever, by your own actions, cause any suffering to anybody? Hurt somebodies feelings? The reality is that God has not destroyed evil because He would have to destroy us. By allowing it to continue, God is showing us mercy.

Why didn't God create humans in a way that they would never be immoral or sinful in any way, thus avoiding evil altogether?
If God did that, then we would not be humans. We would be robots who act in only programmed ways. He gave us the capacity and ability to make our own choices. See friends, I believe that God wants us to love him due to our own choices, not because he forces us to.
I dare you to think up a better way to deal with the problem of evil that does not destroy human freedom or cause God to violate His nature. "

 

[*aca*]

I cannot present to you evidence of absence to immaterial things, which is precisely my point.

No, that was mine (and Martin's) point.

Glad you agree

 

[rounder]

No, that was mine (and Martin's) point.

Glad you agree

Really? well, I think it goes without saying that we cannot use actual scientific evidence to prove God's existence. If that were so, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.

However, this does not deny the fact that there exists metaphysical, philosophical, cosmological evidence of Intelligent Design.

 

[Raz]

I was`t refering to us doing something bad to each other. I wanted to ask you about natural disasters, diseases. Why is there diseases other than natural selection? And how can such good nature being involve natural selection. How can you explain millions of people dieing in Africa, or as I said thousands dieing from tsunami. And to a bigger extent meteors, I dont think we would lose our freedom if all those things would extinct.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Really? well, I think it goes without saying that we cannot use actual scientific evidence to prove God's existence. If that were so, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.

However, this does not deny the fact that there exists metaphysical, philosophical, cosmological evidence of Intelligent Design.

Exactly, because God lovers would look like idiots.

 

[Martin]

Let me start off by saying fuck the catholic church, they have corrupted the purity and holiness of Christianity.

I think of all the statements you've made in on this topic this one will probably win you the widest consensus. Personally I have no axe to grind with the Catholics, they never did anything to me. Aside from deception that is, but I survived unscathed.

I will come back to your premises and I will try to explain why sensory evidence does not apply to everything, much less a supernatural being.

I hope you do not limit your understanding of everything in life to science, that would be unintelligible and unfortunate.

Do you agree that there are some things in life we know exist without the need of scientific evidence?

No. Science and rationality is the way that we attempt to understand our world. From what I learned recently, this is Locke's philosophy of epistemology. And it's contrary to what Descartes apparently believed, namely that with our god given minds (pretty much everyone believed in god in the 17th century) we can figure out everything about the world. Locke said that was nonsense. Instead we have to base our knowledge on actual facts, not something we just conjure up in our heads.

But that's not to say Descartes was an idiot. We know far more about the world today, not least about psychology. And we know that the mind is not a magical, inexplicable thing. We know what it's made of, and we've done enough experiments to know that for instance electroshock therapy, while horribly painful, can cure a person's serious mental illness.

Above all, we know the mind is not god given. And it's very prone to mistakes. So the way to gain knowledge is not to look "inwards" into ourself, it's to look outwards and to verify our observations with other observers.

Aesthetic beauty, feelings, passion, love cannot be detected by our senses. We know they exist without needing to prove them scientifically because they are immaterial. I have been trying to explain that scientific evidence can only apply to material things but you refuse to listen.

All of these emotions happen in the brain. I know you refuse such explanations without an iron clad guarantee. Why I frankly don't know. 99% of what people once believed was god given has been shown to be natural.

How can you scientifically prove that your neighbour has a mind? Really, please present me with evidence right now to show me he has a mind. You can't, because something like a mind is not material, therefore science cannot possibly apply to it.

This is solipsism, aca already said so many months ago when you first said it. And so is that little story of yours about the teacher and the students that was supposed to prove god (and no philosophy teacher would be dumb enough to fall for it).

The question is what would be necessary to convince you that some object has a mind?

 

[rounder]

I was`t refering to us doing something bad to each other. I wanted to ask you about natural disasters, diseases. Why is there diseases other than natural selection? And how can such good nature being involve natural selection. How can you explain millions of people dieing in Africa, or as I said thousands dieing from tsunami. And to a bigger extent meteors, I dont think we would lose our freedom if all those things would extinct.

Okay, you have to read the Bible to be able to grasp the reasons to why natural disasters happen. In fact, they are prophesized in the Bible in revelation.

As for what is happening to Africa, really don't you think poverty is a result of mankind's greed? I am not saying it is fair for these African children who don't deserve to come into a world that they have no chance in surviving in. It's tragic and terrible.

But don't you think it is astounding that regardless of this, human greed prevails and instead of directing all our efforts to rescue humanity, men would rather invest in the stock market so they can afford a new ferrari. As I said, it is the consequence of free will. Would you rather we be sheep with absolutely no control of our destiny than imperfect but freethinking human beings that have control of our destiny?

If you are longing for some kind of utopia, you must understand that this comes at the expense of our very nature, we would have to be mindless drones for this to be even possible. So as unfortunate as it is, innocent children in Africa have to pay the price for the nature of mankind.

 

[Raz]

I hope you do not limit your understanding of everything in life to science, that would be unintelligible and unfortunate.

Do you agree that there are some things in life we know exist without the need of scientific evidence?

Aesthetic beauty, feelings, passion, love cannot be detected by our senses. We know they exist without needing to prove them scientifically because they are immaterial. I have been trying to explain that scientific evidence can only apply to material things but you refuse to listen.

Mine isnt

Yes, i agree, but i think that in a future those things will be detectable, once technology progresses to new levels.

Beauty, feelings, passion, love, I dont need a scientific evidence, because i feel them. But i dont feel god. From what i know, from my friends, people start feeling god more when they believe stronger.

As Martin said - "The "better" you are as a believer, the more of religious doctrine you actually believe, the more it poisons your mind and your psychological well being. The more you believe the more you convince yourself that you are nothing but a worthless sinner who isn't capable of anything and doesn't deserve credit for anything. In other words, the perfect slave."

 

[Raz]

We see bible differently, I don`t hold every word written in it to be truth, I view it as any other old book, which is somehow reflecting those days events or some sort of history, but with distorted facts. So i dont think bible would help me here.

 

[*aca*]

However, this does not deny the fact that there exists metaphysical, philosophical, cosmological evidence of Intelligent Design.

You are using wrong words. That is not EVIDENCE. Evidence is material and can be tried & tested, verified. Those are metaphysical cooked up explanations. All of those do not stand up to close us scrutiny.

Furthermore, they all boil down to "Unknown being did it by unknown means and because you can not give me the full & absolutely correct answer, i claim that my god did it"

That is not an explanation. It is just throwing further confusion to the problem by introducing unnecessary element, ie god.

 

[rounder]

I think of all the statements you've made in on this topic this one will probably win you the widest consensus. Personally I have no axe to grind with the Catholics, they never did anything to me. Aside from deception that is, but I survived unscathed.

I don't find that very hard to believe.

It's not the catholics that I hate. It is the Catholic church, they have incredibly tried to deduce science from the Bible which is absolutely absurd. They are the reason for the "God of the Gaps" and this in my opinion effectively destroyed the credibility of Christianity, not because Christianity was wrong, but because the Catholic church were idiots.

No. Science and rationality is the way that we attempt to understand our world. From what I learned recently, this is Locke's philosophy of epistemology. And it's contrary to what Descartes apparently believed, namely that with our god given minds (pretty much everyone believed in god in the 17th century) we can figure out everything about the world. Locke said that was nonsense. Instead we have to base our knowledge on actual facts, not something we just conjure up in our heads.

But that's not to say Descartes was an idiot. We know far more about the world today, not least about psychology. And we know that the mind is not a magical, inexplicable thing. We know what it's made of, and we've done enough experiments to know that for instance electroshock therapy, while horribly painful, can cure a person's serious mental illness.

Like I said before, to aquire material knowledge, we must obviously resort to external scientific experimentation. However, Locke is severely incorrect in saying that absolutely everything in life can only be understood by examining actual facts.

Oftentimes conjuring things in our heads will actually lead to fascinating and increadible discoveries. We were discussing casuality the other day, it is actually the very basis of science. The principle of casuality was a result of someone conjuring things up in his head, I think it was Socrates. Thus I think it is rather accurate to say that reflection can give us an excellent comprehension of the world around us. Again, here I am not talking about material things.

All of these emotions happen in the brain. I know you refuse such explanations without an iron clad guarantee. Why I frankly don't know. 99% of what people once believed was god given has been shown to be natural.

I know these emotions happen in the brain, my point is that they cannot possible be scientifically proven. Meaning that you cannot prove the beauty of a painting for example. These are emotions, immaterial things, that science cannot prove or explain.

This is solipsism, aca already said so many months ago when you first said it. And so is that little story of yours about the teacher and the students that was supposed to prove god (and no philosophy teacher would be dumb enough to fall for it).

It does not matter that it is solipsism, that is besides the point I am making here.

The question is what would be necessary to convince you that some object has a mind?

Nothing, the mind is immaterial.

 

[rounder]

Mine isnt

Yes, i agree, but i think that in a future those things will be detectable, once technology progresses to new levels.

Beauty, feelings, passion, love, I dont need a scientific evidence, because i feel them. But i dont feel god. From what i know, from my friends, people start feeling god more when they believe stronger.

As Martin said - "The "better" you are as a believer, the more of religious doctrine you actually believe, the more it poisons your mind and your psychological well being. The more you believe the more you convince yourself that you are nothing but a worthless sinner who isn't capable of anything and doesn't deserve credit for anything. In other words, the perfect slave."

Why don't you ask a Christian about how he feels about the presence of God in him rather than what an an atheist thinks the Christian feels?

If you ask me what mankind's greatest flaw is, I will abruptly tell you it is his ego.
Atheists with their overinflated ego refuse to accept to be servants for anyone, that anything is higher than them, they have deluded themselves with this notion of equality. I accept that we are nothing, we are weak, and we are very limited in every possible aspect. I believe that I am being the realist here.

I think a large part of the world do feel God. Thus couldn't God be something that is existent, very much like emotions that you and I feel? Who is anyone to deny the presence of God in millions of people?