I want the discussion about God exitence and non-exictence to stay in this thread and not other that has another topic. Like the "Reason" thread and others, this discussion shouldn't be on such threads. OTherwise will this debate just get confusing and hard to follow.

So to make things clearer do I want Fr0d0 to answer some question. It may be repetitive. But I want to summeries some things and make things more clear.

Ok, so if you Fr0d0 can just answer these perhaps repetitive question so we can get on with the discussion instead of repiting.

1. Gods existence, what proof are there? Empirical or not, explain please. Also explain the theory about God that you once mentioned.
2. Other gods exitence, why do you not believe in them?

Just answer these two question, just so it become more easier for me that haven't followed the debate all the time before.

I may find some other questions but is quite primary that I want to know what your opinion is. Don't want this discussion to become hostile. So if we could keep it friendly or atleast civilized then it would be great.

(April 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm)Giff Wrote: I want the discussion about God exitence and non-exictence to stay in this thread and not other that has another topic. Like the "Reason" thread and others, this discussion shouldn't be on such threads. OTherwise will this debate just get confusing and hard to follow.

So to make things clearer do I want Fr0d0 to answer some question. It may be repetitive. But I want to summeries some things and make things more clear.

Ok, so if you Fr0d0 can just answer these perhaps repetitive question so we can get on with the discussion instead of repiting.

1. Gods existence, what proof are there? Empirical or not, explain please. Also explain the theory about God that you once mentioned.
2. Other gods exitence, why do you not believe in them?

Just answer these two question, just so it become more easier for me that haven't followed the debate all the time before.

I may find some other questions but is quite primary that I want to know what your opinion is. Don't want this discussion to become hostile. So if we could keep it friendly or atleast civilized then it would be great.

Thanks for your civility Giff. I appreciate it.

1. There is no proof of God's existence, and I don't believe there can be, if you take the Christin Bible as your guide. It is one of the things we can know about the nature of God. God HAS to be a choice, therefore THERE CAN BE no certainty. This is an example of non empirical evidence (in this case reasoning to the negative). A rational supposition from accepted (Biblical) observations.

I dismiss personal witness of miracles and the like as superstition. I've known personally some reliable people who say that they've witnessed 'muscles grow'. I'm with the scientists who cry foul.

Non empirical evidence is the type easily dismissed. As mentioned above, recorded observations of the nature of God collected in the Christian Bible. Other non empirical evidence is experience directly, as Christianity is after all, about the direct communication with God.

Again, I dismiss 'feelings' and 'chance' for the same reasons as above. A Christian has to consider very carefully what could possibly be of God and what couldn't. Christians are also required to check their experience against the Bible and with other Christians to see that what they are experiencing etc can actually be consistent with the nature of God.


You said that theoretically God couldn't exist. Richard Dawkins has said that it isn't possible to know absolutely (to paraphrase). He states (accurately IMO) that it would be highly unlikely & so it would be reasonable to hold the belief that there was no supernatural god. I entirely support this statement. That's all I was saying.


2. Why one particular God and not every other god/ deity/ fantasy figure? I was raised in an atheist household. I have always been very curious about religion and spirituality. I have seriously considered many beliefs outside the one I currently accept. Like I said, I considered all possibilities and rejected those which made no sense. The Christian God made more and more sense, and I reached a point where I could rationally accept it to be the absolute truth for me. That isn't to say that I dismiss other spiritual influence. I think it's responsible to consider everything (besides the obviously ridiculous) and there's lots to be learned.

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There is no proof of God's existence, and I don't believe there can be, if you take the Christin Bible as your guide. It is one of the things we can know about the nature of God. God HAS to be a choice, therefore THERE CAN BE no certainty. This is an example of non empirical evidence (in this case reasoning to the negative). A rational supposition from accepted (Biblical) observations.

No, it is NOT an example of evidence at all and if you clam it is then you are back exactly where I have accused you of being, at the point of claiming that no evidence equates to evidence for your god. As requested in the other thread I would like to know what evidence you have for the existence of your god and if no evidence is what we should expect then how do you differentiate between your (Christian) claim and that of other non-Christian religions past & present? IOW there are other people in this world who believe they're (non-Christian) god/s is/are real ... are they and, if not, why does your god deserve any more credence than theirs?

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I dismiss personal witness of miracles and the like as superstition. I've known personally some reliable people who say that they've witnessed 'muscles grow'. I'm with the scientists who cry foul.

Excellent ...

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Non empirical evidence is the type easily dismissed. As mentioned above, recorded observations of the nature of God collected in the Christian Bible. Other non empirical evidence is experience directly, as Christianity is after all, about the direct communication with God.

... and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid that (in essence) says that the recorded observations of your god in the Christian bible are true. What about the recorded observations of the gods of other religions in their holy scriptures?

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Non Again, I dismiss 'feelings' and 'chance' for the same reasons as above. A Christian has to consider very carefully what could possibly be of God and what couldn't. Christians are also required to check their experience against the Bible and with other Christians to see that what they are experiencing etc can actually be consistent with the nature of God.

Yeah, yeah you're testing your beliefs a.k.a. confirming them as per usual.

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Non You said that theoretically God couldn't exist. Richard Dawkins has said that it isn't possible to know absolutely (to paraphrase). He states (accurately IMO) that it would be highly unlikely & so it would be reasonable to hold the belief that there was no supernatural god. I entirely support this statement. That's all I was saying.

It is not possible to rule out the existence of any claimed god however, such claims are extraordinary not only because no currently accepted explanation requests or requires the action of deity, not only does such an explanation require a degree of fit with currently accepted explanations but because the acceptance of such an explanation as valid would fuck up every explanation we had and would destroy all forms of rational investigation including science.

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Non Why one particular God and not every other god/ deity/ fantasy figure? I was raised in an atheist household. I have always been very curious about religion and spirituality. I have seriously considered many beliefs outside the one I currently accept. Like I said, I considered all possibilities and rejected those which made no sense. The Christian God made more and more sense, and I reached a point where I could rationally accept it to be the absolute truth for me. That isn't to say that I dismiss other spiritual influence. I think it's responsible to consider everything (besides the obviously ridiculous) and there's lots to be learned.

So your explanation is broadly speaking because you think it's the best one? That's it? That's fucking it? Well fuck me backwards with a fire hydrant!

Kyu

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck


fuck


... it's no big and itz no clever dontchaknow mr K?



..fuck

(April 14, 2009 at 3:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm)Giff Wrote: I want the discussion about God exitence and non-exictence to stay in this thread and not other that has another topic. Like the "Reason" thread and others, this discussion shouldn't be on such threads. OTherwise will this debate just get confusing and hard to follow.

So to make things clearer do I want Fr0d0 to answer some question. It may be repetitive. But I want to summeries some things and make things more clear.

Ok, so if you Fr0d0 can just answer these perhaps repetitive question so we can get on with the discussion instead of repiting.

1. Gods existence, what proof are there? Empirical or not, explain please. Also explain the theory about God that you once mentioned.
2. Other gods exitence, why do you not believe in them?

Just answer these two question, just so it become more easier for me that haven't followed the debate all the time before.

I may find some other questions but is quite primary that I want to know what your opinion is. Don't want this discussion to become hostile. So if we could keep it friendly or atleast civilized then it would be great.

Thanks for your civility Giff. I appreciate it.

1. There is no proof of God's existence, and I don't believe there can be, if you take the Christin Bible as your guide. It is one of the things we can know about the nature of God. God HAS to be a choice, therefore THERE CAN BE no certainty. This is an example of non empirical evidence (in this case reasoning to the negative). A rational supposition from accepted (Biblical) observations.

I dismiss personal witness of miracles and the like as superstition. I've known personally some reliable people who say that they've witnessed 'muscles grow'. I'm with the scientists who cry foul.

Non empirical evidence is the type easily dismissed. As mentioned above, recorded observations of the nature of God collected in the Christian Bible. Other non empirical evidence is experience directly, as Christianity is after all, about the direct communication with God.

Again, I dismiss 'feelings' and 'chance' for the same reasons as above. A Christian has to consider very carefully what could possibly be of God and what couldn't. Christians are also required to check their experience against the Bible and with other Christians to see that what they are experiencing etc can actually be consistent with the nature of God.


You said that theoretically God couldn't exist. Richard Dawkins has said that it isn't possible to know absolutely (to paraphrase). He states (accurately IMO) that it would be highly unlikely & so it would be reasonable to hold the belief that there was no supernatural god. I entirely support this statement. That's all I was saying.


2. Why one particular God and not every other god/ deity/ fantasy figure? I was raised in an atheist household. I have always been very curious about religion and spirituality. I have seriously considered many beliefs outside the one I currently accept. Like I said, I considered all possibilities and rejected those which made no sense. The Christian God made more and more sense, and I reached a point where I could rationally accept it to be the absolute truth for me. That isn't to say that I dismiss other spiritual influence. I think it's responsible to consider everything (besides the obviously ridiculous) and there's lots to be learned.

Glad that you gave me an answer.

I wonder what is obiously ridiclous and whats not? Also what is saying that a ceratain god is ridicolous and another isn't, is it your own opinion, others, logic or theoritcal?

(April 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: it's no big and itz no clever dontchaknow mr K?

Try answering the points made instead of dodging behind my bad language (bought on by my intense frustration with you and the way you "debate").

Kyu

(April 15, 2009 at 3:46 am)Giff Wrote: Glad that you gave me an answer.

No problem.

(April 15, 2009 at 3:46 am)Giff Wrote: I wonder what is obiously ridiclous and whats not?

Well one faith says thunder is caused by angels playing bowls. It doesn't take much more than rudimentary science to dismiss that one. One for the ridiculous pile. See what I mean?

(April 15, 2009 at 3:46 am)Giff Wrote: Also what is saying that a ceratain god is ridicolous and another isn't, is it your own opinion, others, logic or theoritcal?

It's your own personal reasoning. With Christianity, you find others have the same opinions. Therefore it isn't unique personal opinion, but shared. Not unique reasoning to you.

Other gods can require more involved reasoning. Like the bowling Angels above.. if the reason for there existence doesn't survive simple logical testing then you could justifiably dismiss them. Not that any attempt to describe spirituality should be entirely discounted out of hand.

---

(April 15, 2009 at 6:27 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 14, 2009 at 4:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: it's no big and itz no clever dontchaknow mr K?

Try answering the points made instead of dodging behind my bad language (bought on by my intense frustration with you and the way you "debate").

Kyu

Calm down and I'll speak with you. Swear your head off and act frustrated and you talk to yourself as far as I'm concerned. It's simple tactics used when talking with children.

The following video shows how to prove that God exist to an Atheist.

[youtube]E2s14T6x5AM[/youtube]

That has told me nothing! Well, that's not exactly true. It demonstrates nicely how vague and ambiguous verses can be interpreted in a certain way after discoveries or events have occurred.

Until a certain discovery is made the verse has a myriad of different meanings, then, after a discovery is made it is only then people can look at a piece of text and say. Ah! That's what it means.

People claim exactly the same for all of Nostradamus's quatrains.

Surely you can see that?

A blind watchmaker argument? What a bunch of kak!

Please ... just go and learn some science because you're making a total fucking arse of yourself here, you're just making yourself look like an scientifically ignorant fool.

As for the claims that there is science in the Quran, we've already been there (http://atheistforums.org/thread-1147-page-3.html)

Kyu