Abiogenesis is impossible

[pocaracas]

you can't scientifically prove God as it has to be a faith based, there's nothing you can do about that.

Why?
It didn't have to be faith based for Abraham... nor Moses... nor the pharaoh... nor everyone else in the bible...
Only us, the people outside the story.

What's that awful smell?! BS

[Darkstar]

Freewill

Do we even have it?

and moral arguments

Euthyphro dilemma

Other arguments include the teleological argument which I find to be compelling as well, particularly if you realize that the universe is one great mathematical framework of precise balance. The cosmos itself and everything within it seems to wok together as a complete whole in bringing about the eventual fruition of life and intelligence so that's a strong point there.

No, not really. What about the 99.999% (probably a low estimate) of the universe that is immediately destructive to life makes you think that the universe works together as a complete whole for the purpose of life?

The message of the Bible particularly NT but also the OT if you look is essentially a God of the oppressed and poor which I believe to be on firm moral ground there, a lot of emphasis good works and charity and so forth.

The fact that it sounds nice to you does not make it more likely to be true.

Christianity seems to be the religion with the fewest man made religious laws and customs and so forth which to my mind makes it the most legit of the claimed revelations. Jesus to me seems like a perfectly good embodiment of God and the good I see as being within humanity as a whole regardless of class, nationality and race.

Except that whole slavery thing, huh?

---

Ephesians 6:5-8
New International Version (NIV)
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

---

Also I believe there is a subjective relational element regarding humanity and God that I experience and is possible for all humans to experience.

Would it be too much of a jump to assume you have no evidence for that?

A few other points include the reverence of the natural world as a creation of God rather than an evil illusion of the maya or whatever it is they tend to believe in the Eastern religions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evil illusion of the maya" but you again run into the problem of assuming that because you like something, that makes it more likely to be true.

So I have all these reasons to believe in God in the Christian sense which as you can see outweigh your reasoning for atheism which states you have to scientifically prove something as a fact before you can believe it.

Or at least provide some unambiguous scientific evidence. You are claiming that there exists a being capable of effortlessly bending all of the physical laws of the universe to its whim; surely you do not think that you have actually proven such a thing, do you? This is a tremendous claim; personal feelings and dubious logic aren't going to demonstrate its truth.

[Faith No More]

...for atheism which states you have to scientifically prove something as a fact before you can believe it.

I think you've set a world record for number of times being told what something is and then going on to say that that something is entirely different from what you've been told.

So, you're either really stupid, purposefully ignoring others, or a troll.

[Sword of Christ]

The urge to live further than the frail human body allows, yes...

Other than ancient Egypt immortality that wasn't really the compelling belief. The ancient Jews didn't even really believe in any afterlife and they still don't particularly have a unified doctrine today. Christian doctrine does have plenty to say when it comes to eternal life as revealed by Christ. Outside of that you have NDEs which I think are good evidence for conscious survival beyond the physical state as there is a good case to be made that the brain is entirely biologically non-functional while they are having this experience. Also the experience does seem to have elements in common with the religious or mystical experience and importantly this is cross cultural. Besides I don't think atheists appreciate that consciousness being a byproduct of the brain is something for which there is any solid evidence or reason to believe. We know it's "physically influential" along with the rest of the body in general but that's about it. Everything else is speculation and assumption based on opinion. God provides the non-physical framework into which this opinion can be mistaken, you can be assured that it is.

Oh, I wouldn't be so bold...
South american indians were godless when the europeans came by

That's not true at all many of them believed in something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


"In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos"

Very similar to the Biblical monotheism.

.. as far as the europeans could see, at least.
And the Buddhists are sort of considered atheists.... with that all pervasive requirement for life after the body shuts down.

Jainism and Buddhism the idea is that everything is God and we are part of God and we attain some kind of unity with God and dissolve yourself into it. In Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths there is always a clear distinction between God and his creatures and we retain our individually.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Tell me, what would be the main piece of evidence that convinces you that god exists?

Freewill and moral arguments are what I would find to be one of the main points as I believe there will have to be source for that and you won't get this from natural physics and biology. Other arguments include the teleological argument which I find to be compelling as well, particularly if you realize that the universe is one great mathematical framework of precise balance. The cosmos itself and everything within it seems to wok together as a complete whole in bringing about the eventual fruition of life and intelligence so that's a strong point there. The message of the Bible particularly NT but also the OT if you look is essentially a God of the oppressed and poor which I believe to be on firm moral ground there, a lot of emphasis good works and charity and so forth. Christianity seems to be the religion with the fewest man made religious laws and customs and so forth which to my mind makes it the most legit of the claimed revelations. Jesus to me seems like a perfectly good embodiment of God and the good I see as being within humanity as a whole regardless of class, nationality and race.

Also I believe there is a subjective relational element regarding humanity and God that I experience and is possible for all humans to experience. A few other points include the reverence of the natural world as a creation of God rather than an evil illusion of the maya or whatever it is they tend to believe in the Eastern religions. You have physical scientifically understandable rational universe and a transcendent God beyond it who created and sustains it and his creatures. There's a lot of other stuff as well but these would cover the the core of it.

So I have all these reasons to believe in God in the Christian sense which as you can see outweigh your reasoning for atheism which states you have to scientifically prove something as a fact before you can believe it. We can be clear that you can't scientifically prove God as it has to be a faith based, there's nothing you can do about that. But as long as all the rational reasons, evidence and arguments are there then it's a reasoned faith which ought to overpower the skeptical position unless you're really seriously dead-set against it. At which point it may as well be a faith but one without much of a foundation. You say "I don't think that's true imo" and then that's kind of it.

I don't understand how every post can be this long, and contain nothing but circular drivel, ending with "as you can clearly see, that about wraps it up".

Do you understand what an argument is, what constitutes evidence, or do you simply write until you are satisfied no one will notice they contain neither?

*incoherent rambling*
Bald assertion
*incoherent rambling*
Bald assertion
*incoherent rambling*
Conclusion

This is not a valid argument format.

* Show it necessary for a supreme being to exist to have free will.

* Show that Christianity "has the fewest man-made religious laws"

* Show the "reverence of the natural world" is not characteristic of Eastern religions, and requires a creator.

* Show a reason for belief in God that outweighs Atheism, other than your own self-satisfied beliefs.

Why join a forum if all you're going to do is talk into a mirror and proclaim yourself victorious?

[pocaracas]

The urge to live further than the frail human body allows, yes...

Other than ancient Egypt immortality that wasn't really the compelling belief. The ancient Jews didn't even really believe in any afterlife and they still don't particularly have a unified doctrine today. Christian doctrine does have plenty to say when it comes to eternal life as revealed by Christ.

You missed a big one

Upon learning more about religious traditions across the world, western scholars also described similar magico-religious practices found within the indigenous religions of other parts of Asia, Africa, Australasia and the Americas as shamanism.
[...]
The shaman communicates with both living and dead to alleviate unrest, unsettled issues, and to deliver gifts to the spirits. Shamans assist in soul retrieval. In shamanism it is believed that part of the human soul is free to leave the body.

Sort of pre-dating all your egyptians and jews and mesopotamians, and chinese and whatever...
Yeah... the cult of the dead, the fear of death, the desire for the after-life... already present in mankind's brain well before any proper organized religion.
Wouldn't take much for someone to take advantage of that and organize something around that fear, that desire...

Outside of that you have NDEs which I think are good evidence for conscious survival beyond the physical state as there is a good case to be made that the brain is entirely biologically non-functional while they are having this experience.

Oh, not this again!!
If the brain was non-functional, how did it get functional again?
Do you know how a neuron transmits a signal to another neuron?
OH, yeah... magic, right? -.-'

Also the experience does seem to have elements in common with the religious or mystical experience and importantly this is cross cultural. Besides I don't think atheists appreciate that consciousness being a byproduct of the brain is something for which there is any solid evidence or reason to believe. We know it's "physically influential" along with the rest of the body in general but that's about it. Everything else is speculation and assumption based on opinion. God provides the non-physical framework into which this opinion can be mistaken, you can be assured that it is.

Everything else is speculation, huh? Well, then, I'm sorry to inform you, but that includes your god-boy... pure speculation.

How would we come to have knowledge of the existence of these... disembodied consciousnesses?
Remember the shamans? and the simple folk who wished they could carry on, somehow, after death?... yeah... wishful thinking, speculation... that's all you have.

Oh, I wouldn't be so bold...
South american indians were godless when the europeans came by

That's not true at all many of them believed in something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism


"In panentheism, the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and the divine are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos"

Very similar to the Biblical monotheism.

Here is an excerpt from the letter written by the scribe aboard the ship that sailed from Portugal and made land in Brazil, in the year 1500.
This letter was addressed to the king of Portugal, at the time.

Parece-me gente de tal inocência que, se homem os entendesse e eles a nós, seriam logo cristãos, porque eles, segundo parece, não têm, nem entendem em nenhuma crença.

Oh, you don't understand it?... pfff
here's a translated version
- These people seem to be so innocent that, if a man was to understand them and them us, they would be christian there and then, because they, as it seems, don't have nor understand any belief.

.. as far as the europeans could see, at least.
And the Buddhists are sort of considered atheists.... with that all pervasive requirement for life after the body shuts down.

Jainism and Buddhism the idea is that everything is God and we are part of God and we attain some kind of unity with God and dissolve yourself into it. In Christianity and the Abrahamic faiths there is always a clear distinction between God and his creatures and we retain our individually.

I'm not very knowledgeable in buddhism, but I guess that description is wrong... let's wait for rasetsu to posit her inside view on that.

Some, if not many, view Buddhism as more a way to live a good life, than as a path to any kind of salvation through karma and reincarnation. In this light, the practice of Buddhism can be seen as a path to inner peace and justice, even viewing the Buddha as less a religious figure, but more a guide to the good life, and a moral teacher, in the same way that some may emphasize the aspect of Jesus as a moral teacher, with or without accepting his divinity — even without accepting his historicity (or its veracity). I've even read accounts that suggest that the Buddha himself in his first person teaching often demurred on the question of reincarnation and Karma, preferring to focus on the here and now. In this aspect, for some, Buddhism's metaphysical doctrines can be viewed in the same light as the belief in gods in Buddhism, that yes they are there, but they're just not important. These types of Buddhism likely would emphasize the aspects of compassion, which is core to Mahayana Buddhisms, and the practice of detachment as noted in the four noble truths (the practice of which, is greatly misunderstood by Westerners), and the moral guidance offered by frameworks such as the eightfold path, and that provided by the wisdom of Buddhist sages throughout the ages.

I see no god is everything in there...

[snowtracks]

... Then the moment you find evidence of that, it'll be rational to accept it as true. That's why the conclusions of science are only ever tentative, but the scientific community equally won't bend over backwards for every ludicrous "what if?" scenario you cook up.

This. In spades.

Merely suggesting possible causes and explanations is only the first step of a very long and involved process of experimentation, fact-checking and correction. Sadly, all-too many amateur pulpit pundits are content to leave all the hard work to others better versed in the rigours of scientific method that they deride so much, yet depend upon for their very existence.

it's logically improper for dismissal of God's existence based on so-called God-of-the-gaps arguments since not all gaps will be filled (it's expected gaps to be filled, after all that's what science does). all things that exist are not scientifically verifiable; science is limited to empirical (based on observation and experiment) causal explanations.

[Esquilax]

it's logically improper for dismissal of God's existence based on so-called God-of-the-gaps arguments since not all gaps will be filled (it's expected gaps to be filled, after all that's what science does). all things that exist are not scientifically verifiable; science is limited to empirical (based on observation and experiment) causal explanations.

We're not dismissing god based on the god of the gaps. We're dismissing god because there's no reason to believe there is one, no evidence that there is that isn't itself fallacious, and since you're admitting that god isn't scientifically verifiable, no rational reason to even consider the idea. All of that combines to point to the conclusion that there's simply nothing that points to a god beyond wishful thinking, and we need more than that to give the idea consideration.

You don't get to put your god beyond the realms of rational inquiry and testing, and then bitch about how unfair it is that we conclude that belief in him is therefore irrational.

[Bad Wolf]

Tell me, what would be the main piece of evidence that convinces you that god exists?

Freewill and moral arguments are what I would find to be one of the main points as I believe there will have to be source for that and you won't get this from natural physics and biology. Other arguments include the teleological argument which I find to be compelling as well, particularly if you realize that the universe is one great mathematical framework of precise balance. The cosmos itself and everything within it seems to wok together as a complete whole in bringing about the eventual fruition of life and intelligence so that's a strong point there. The message of the Bible particularly NT but also the OT if you look is essentially a God of the oppressed and poor which I believe to be on firm moral ground there, a lot of emphasis good works and charity and so forth. Christianity seems to be the religion with the fewest man made religious laws and customs and so forth which to my mind makes it the most legit of the claimed revelations. Jesus to me seems like a perfectly good embodiment of God and the good I see as being within humanity as a whole regardless of class, nationality and race.

Also I believe there is a subjective relational element regarding humanity and God that I experience and is possible for all humans to experience. A few other points include the reverence of the natural world as a creation of God rather than an evil illusion of the maya or whatever it is they tend to believe in the Eastern religions. You have physical scientifically understandable rational universe and a transcendent God beyond it who created and sustains it and his creatures. There's a lot of other stuff as well but these would cover the the core of it.

So I have all these reasons to believe in God in the Christian sense which as you can see outweigh your reasoning for atheism which states you have to scientifically prove something as a fact before you can believe it. We can be clear that you can't scientifically prove God as it has to be a faith based, there's nothing you can do about that. But as long as all the rational reasons, evidence and arguments are there then it's a reasoned faith which ought to overpower the skeptical position unless you're really seriously dead-set against it. At which point it may as well be a faith but one without much of a foundation. You say "I don't think that's true imo" and then that's kind of it.

I asked for evidence. The arguments from free will, morality and the teleological arguments are not evidence, they are just arguments. And the bible is not evidence either, it is yet another claim that Christians have been unable to provide evidence for.

[Ryantology]

Outside of that you have NDEs which I think are good evidence for conscious survival beyond the physical state as there is a good case to be made that the brain is entirely biologically non-functional while they are having this experience.

The fact that NDEs have this interesting tendency to reflect imagery of whatever religion is locally popular is an argument against the existence of your particular god, since he's supposed to be the only one there is.