(June 30, 2022 at 7:41 pm)rlp21858 Wrote: the last statement leads to what ive been meaning to ask the members.  for any who feel these questions are applicable and are willing to answer them:

1)what do you believe about God?
2)in short description, on what information did you base this conclusion?
3)and in what ways have you tested the information to make your conclusion final?

1) When taking God as real for the sake of argument, I'm talking about whatever version of God the other person is proposing.
2) The statements of those who claim God is real.
3) I don't have a final conclusion about the nature of God, except 'insufficent evidence to justify belief so probably imaginary' applies to all the ones I've heard of. In some cases the proposed version of God has contradictory attributes or did things that didn't happen, so a conclusion of 'definitely does not exist' is justified, barring 'last Thursdayism'. For example, the version of the God of Abraham that created the universe in six literal days, the earth before the sun, and flooded the whole earth to above the mountaintops, and stopped the sun in the sky twice, doesn't exist because that contradicts the abundant evidence that those events didn't occur as described in the Old Testament. Deists usually make minimalist claims about God that don't rule that version out, so the most you can say is that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify believing in that one.

(July 1, 2022 at 8:01 am)arewethereyet Wrote: What people mean when they say they don't believe in god is that they don't believe in god.  Surely, that's not difficult to understand.

It's difficult to understand when you are not listening, which they (rlp) are not.  I said essentially the same thing and was told that I needed to choose to believe, then practice believing.  That's why I disengaged - it immediately devolved one-way preaching, not the discussion they insist they want to have.

(July 1, 2022 at 7:57 am)rlp21858 Wrote: Jehanne: i agree it would be an impressive feat, but it seems to me this stems from a belief that God is the breaking of the laws of physics/nature/etc and reveals himself by breaking those laws. *where did you get this belief?

So Jesus allegedly walking on liquid water did not violate any physical conservation laws.

(July 1, 2022 at 9:54 am)TheJefe817 Wrote:

(July 1, 2022 at 8:01 am)arewethereyet Wrote: What people mean when they say they don't believe in god is that they don't believe in god.  Surely, that's not difficult to understand.

It's difficult to understand when you are not listening, which they (rlp) are not.  I said essentially the same thing and was told that I needed to choose to believe, then practice believing.  That's why I disengaged - it immediately devolved one-way preaching, not the discussion they insist they want to have.

Yeah, that's often what we run into here when the believers show up.  They 'believe' their way is the only way.

I did play along for years, it didn't take.

Apparently gawd doesn't know when you are faking it.

(July 1, 2022 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(June 30, 2022 at 9:38 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: I don't think you gave a clear answer on if you would consider the example given as evidence.

A detailed prophetic dream that was verified would probably convince the person having the experience that at least something beyond our current comprehension had occurred. If they documented the experience and events carefully, others might find it convincing as well. It would take something like Jehanne is proposing to establish it scentifically.

The problem is always connecting the evidence to the proposed explanation. What specifically about such a phenomena requires all the properties attributed to the Christian god? There's a massive disconnect in the belief that if you can evidence one aspect of your chosen god, then you're free to just assume the whole truckload of characteristics. Evidence of any god like the Christian god would require so much evidence that making a cogent case is a tall feat. And Hume's objection to miracles is always lurking in the background to remind us that however fantastic the event, there's always an explanation that doesn't rely on the supernatural. In this case, it would likely be more probable that you are dealing with a time traveling neuroscientist from the future than that you are dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent god.

Deesse23: i believe the God of Islam and of Christianity are the same.

in one of Belacqua's last posts he mentions the Taoist definition for God and i believe their definition and the Christian definition are very similar, maybe exactly the same. do people not believe that all of the possible conceptions of God are referring to the same God? i do: in case it helps, i believe Christianity is the "one true faith" because it combines the truths of all other religions and was meant to discontinue them so that we're unified under one faith.

That's special.

(June 30, 2022 at 7:41 pm)rlp21858 Wrote: 1)what do you believe about God?
2)in short description, on what information did you base this conclusion?
3)and in what ways have you tested the information to make your conclusion final?

1) I believe that all gods are archetypes that humans use as placeholders whenever they encounter something they can't otherwise explain.

2) I've never experienced anything that pointed to a god as the only possible explanation, and am much more confident in the ability of the scientific method to explain mysterious phenomena.

3) Why would I bother testing my own non-belief?  How does one test a lack of evidence?  I feel no need to take it any further than that.  If a god exists and wants to make my acquaintance, it can make itself known to me in whatever way it feels is most appropriate - I'm not going to go looking for it, as I don't believe that there's anything to go looking for.

(July 1, 2022 at 8:21 pm)rlp21858 Wrote: Deesse23: i believe the God of Islam and of Christianity are the same.

Muslims certainly do not believe in christ.  

Quote:in one of Belacqua's last posts he mentions the Taoist definition for God and i believe their definition and the Christian definition are very similar, maybe exactly the same.  do people not believe that all of the possible conceptions of God are referring to the same God?  i do: in case it helps, i believe Christianity is the "one true faith" because it combines the truths of all other religions and was meant to discontinue them so that we're unified under one faith.

How convenient for the one true religion.  Baha'i nutters do the same thing, claim the entirety of all other faiths while simultaneously rejecting them.  It seems to me like you know that they don't believe in the god you do, and you know that you don't believe in the god they do.  Pointless.

Pointless, and wrong in point of fact. Christianity does not combine the truths of all other religions, regardless of what truths any religion holds. It's influences were strictly limited to a tiny spot on the globe, in particular frame of time. Is it important for your beliefs to even remotely approximate the truth, or would that be optional for the one true religion?

(July 1, 2022 at 8:21 pm)rlp21858 Wrote: Deesse23: i believe the God of Islam and of Christianity are the same.

On faith? Why dont you have faith in other gods?
Are there any other topics you apply faith to (like "when will the next bus arrive") or do you apply faith only to religion/gods? If "no", why?