Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Tiberius]

You could say the same thing about the universe itself. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the laws of our universe (that effects have a cause) do not apply to God, since he does not have to inhabit our universe.

There are a couple of problems with this. Namely, that cause and effect is only true of the atomic world, not the subatomic quantum world, and that the universe itself, in the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang, was not itself in our "universe" (since it doesn't inhabit itself anymore than God might).

To elaborate, if you can argue that God doesn't exist a universe of cause and effect, and thereby has no cause, you can argue that the universe itself does not exist in a "universe" of cause and effect. Internally, the universe has cause and effect, but you cannot say this of whatever plane of existence the universe itself sits on (if it does sit on one). It could be that the nature of the place that the universe resides in is one where universes simply spring into being.

[tackattack]

I conceed that the universe could have just sprung into being entirely of it's own volition. My point was the only frame of reference we could possibly stand to reason on is the framework of this universe. From our perspective within this universe it's highly unlikely that whatever the universe is didn't cause itself therfore had a cause of it's own, whatever that may be.

I'm still barely grasping at teh quantum stuff but here's a question. Was the singularity atomic or subatomic?

Here's another question I've been rolling around with. Consider a ball of rubberbands sitting inside a completely isolated vaccum that filters all forces. Now take that vaccum (w/ball) outside of time and space. What could cause that ball to change from whatever state it was in to anything different? Could anything change that ball inside the vaccum?

[Tiberius]

I contend that within this universe, we have no ability to make such a probabilistic assertion. If our frame of reference in within the universe itself, you cannot possibly make any assertion about the universe as a single entity. It might not abide by the same rules as the stuff inside it.

The singularity is a point which has no volume, and infinite density. Having no volume means that it is smaller than the subatomic (since sub-atomic particles do have some volume).

As for your other question, I have honestly no idea. A vacuum contains no matter, so to take it outside of space and time would be to remove space and time from our universe. Not sure that would do to the universe...let along the ball

[tackattack]

Ok I'll let someone else ponder that acrobatic brain jui-jutsu.

As far as your contention, what if we seperate teh universe in to the known universe and the universe itself as a definition. Could we then extrapolate th properties of the universe with high probability by reasoning within the framework of our known universe and the laws we observe?

[Edwardo Piet]

If we are organisms then there is no free will?

No, that does not follow logically, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying I don't believe in an incompatabilsit 'Free Will' because I know of no such evidence supporting the possibility. I'm not saying It's impossible (although I am doubtful but I consider it, like all matters, to ultimately be unknowable).

[...]I don't see how a "causal determinist" can'st see a cause for the creation of the knwon universe.

I don't see either... I consider that to logically not follow.

I know of no evidence and see no reason to believe in a creator though.

Is anyone a logical determinist? That seems far too black and white to make sense.

It makes sense to me if I am to reckon that the likes of QM does not evidence that the universe as a whole is indeterministic, because it might just be that we don't know of the causes yet or that the quantum universe just works different somehow. I am not sure which to believe, determinism or indeterminism.

EvF

[Tiberius]

Ok I'll let someone else ponder that acrobatic brain jui-jutsu.

As far as your contention, what if we seperate teh universe in to the known universe and the universe itself as a definition. Could we then extrapolate th properties of the universe with high probability by reasoning within the framework of our known universe and the laws we observe?

You misunderstand me.

We can extrapolate the laws of the universe internally. However, the universe is a closed system, so there is no way of knowing what is "outside", or to put it another way, what environment the universe itself is in, and what laws rule over the environment.

Thus I held that your assertion that we could put a conclusion of "highly unlikely" on the universe coming into existence without a cause was unfounded. The laws that govern the internal mechanisms of a closed system do not have to be the same as those that govern the external mechanisms.

[tackattack]

---

If we are organisms then there is no free will?

No, that does not follow logically, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying I don't believe in an incompatabilsit 'Free Will' because I know of no such evidence supporting the possibility. I'm not saying It's impossible (although I am doubtful but I consider it, like all matters, to ultimately be unknowable).

[...]I don't see how a "causal determinist" can'st see a cause for the creation of the knwon universe.

I don't see either... I consider that to logically not follow.

I know of no evidence and see no reason to believe in a creator though.

Is anyone a logical determinist? That seems far too black and white to make sense.

It makes sense to me if I am to reckon that the likes of QM does not evidence that the universe as a whole is indeterministic, because it might just be that we don't know of the causes yet or that the quantum universe just works different somehow. I am not sure which to believe, determinism or indeterminism.

EvF

---

1) Organism and free will: I agree it doesn't follow logically, It was a paraphrase of Adrian's statement.
2) I wasn't stating you were a causal determinist just that someone who believes: If the world is under the sway of determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of the natural law of causality. This person couldn't see reason to have a cause for the big bang. The fact as to what/who created teh cause can't even be assesed until that is resolved.
3)Having a wold with zero chaos and all 1's and 0's seems far too optimistic and implausable for me to concieve of. Sure we can work on deliniating teh gray areas into black and white, I think there's always going to be a gray though.

---

Ok I'll let someone else ponder that acrobatic brain jui-jutsu.

As far as your contention, what if we seperate teh universe in to the known universe and the universe itself as a definition. Could we then extrapolate th properties of the universe with high probability by reasoning within the framework of our known universe and the laws we observe?

You misunderstand me.

We can extrapolate the laws of the universe internally. However, the universe is a closed system, so there is no way of knowing what is "outside", or to put it another way, what environment the universe itself is in, and what laws rule over the environment.

Thus I held that your assertion that we could put a conclusion of "highly unlikely" on the universe coming into existence without a cause was unfounded. The laws that govern the internal mechanisms of a closed system do not have to be the same as those that govern the external mechanisms.

---

ok. so now the universe is a closed system as opposed to open. I thought VOId already corrected me on this multiple times, with I believe dark energy. I think we haveto assume the universe is a closed system to maintain sanity, otherwise we could extrapolate numerous theories on multiple planes of existance without yet first knowing all of our own. I agree that the laws that govern the internal mechanism don't necessarily apply to the external mechanism. That's actually my same point about God have to have a creator. From within the mechanism though we still need to establish if something created the big bang or it just was.

[Watson]

We're observing the same world, therefore if there are differences between two different definitions, they are likely to be minor or unimportant at best.

You don't get definitions from observing the natural world though. That is the point. A definition is a statement about the meaning of a certain word. If someone defines that word one way, and another person defines it another way, you have no way of telling which definition is correct. This is why standards were developed. A word had a standard array of definitions, depending on the context in which the word was used.

A.) Please excuse me if I sound rude, but this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. "You don't get definitions from observing the natural world." Then where do you get them? How can you get a definition without first having something to define? X does not equal X because you have a bunch of people who agree to it, especially if said people have never even observed X in the first place. It's as ridiculous as saying God exists because a bunch of people agree to it.

B.) You cannot properly create a definition without first having a clear understanding of the defined. To have that, you have to have encountered the thing in question in real life.

That was my point. If you don't understand the point of view of another, you cannot hope to believe it too. Thus if you have two people of separate beliefs, neither will truly know why the other believes the way he does unless they share that belief. You can understand what that belief is, but you can never understand why they believe the way they do. That is a personal thing, and you are simply incapable of knowing it unless you have the same belief as they do.

C.) Your first statement is true, to an extent. You cannot hope to believe in something you do not understand, and if you do try to believe in it, then you are likely to have a warped concept of it aka a Fundamentalist Christian.

D.) However I disagree with your second statement. You can understand the person and their reason for believing as they do, but not their belief if you do not share it. However, if you accept that person as a friend and don't view them as against you simply for thinking differently than you, you can have better insight and understanding into their train of thought.

As I said before, you don't make up definitions from observances and perceptions. Definitions are standardised. The only time you look to observation and perception for a definition is when you are making a new one for the standard collection. Otherwise, you refer to the standard collection and see which definition best matches your observation. Not the other way around.

See A.) Are you suggesting that we should view reality based on definition, rather than create definition based on reality? That's ridiculous.

Assumptions are useful in arguments. Science is based on an assumption (that materialism is true), as are most ways of thinking. It isn't reasonable to assume there is a God because an assumption alone doesn't do anything. However, assumptions can lead to places. The assumptions of materialism in science have led to some of the best discoveries in the universe. Likewise, if you assume God, you can say some things about such a being. Whether the being exists or not, or materialism is true or not, is irrelevant. What matters is the places assumptions lead to.

E.) I agree with this and will concede a bit on the subject. However, if you work from the basis of their being a God, then you can understand that being(God) much better than if you work from the assumption that there is not a God.

Try to ease up on the sarcasm, it makes you seem pompous and, well, arrogant. For the sake of correctin gmyself, however, we'll substitute where I said 'accident' and replace it with the word 'coincidence' again.[/quote]
You misunderstand. I *am* pompous and arrogant. Don't lecture me on what way to speak on a forum *I* run, thank you very much.[/quote]
I'm not lecturing you, but admitting to a character fault is not absolving of it. You would do well to speak to people respectfully in a discussion. Otherwise, why would they want to understand your side at all?

You don't know the meaning of the word coincidence either. Look it up for fuck's sake. Coincidences have causes too! Look:

a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance

Notice the word "apparently". That is only the way it seems, not what actually happened. The example they give is "Our meeting in Venice was pure coincidence.". It's a coincidence because the two events (A going to Venice and B going to Venice) seemed completely separate to each other, yet they joined at some point (in Venice). There are causes behind both events (both A and B got on a plane at some point I presume). A coincidence happens when two events are seemingly mutually exclusive, and yet happen at the same time.

F.) This is a fairly nice representation of 'coincidence', the example you provided, and I cotend that it appears by mere chance that the two people took the course of action they did. But look at the bigger picture; why did A and B both go to Venice, and why did they meet up? I submit to you that, regardless of whether they simply bumped into each other or had a prior engagement with each other, the meeting itself was a planned course because A 'knew', in a sense, that he/she had to meet B, and vice versa for B.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be truth. Read my prior posts, not just the one you responded to.

I contend that you have not eliminated the impossible. There are many other explanations other than "God did it" which have to be evaluated. The problem with this statement, is whilst it is all very well in literature, it bears no resemblance to reality. In reality, with a universe so big, with perhaps an infinite amount of possibilities, you cannot hope to eliminate them all.

Thus you are left with a number of different possibilities, of which most you know too little about to conclude that they are "impossible". If you think you can prove all other possibilities false, by all means don't let me stop you. I think you'll be there till the end of time, but hey, that's just my opinion.

G.) What was the quote I saw somewhere around here in a signature? It was something to the effect of "science is not a study of what is impossible or possible, but what is less likely and more likely." Observing the facts of the matter and the scenario that night, I can see no more likely explanation that does not jump through hoops and use flawed definitions than to say that God and the universe itself were conspiring to help and advise my friend that night. And that does not just mean 'God did it.' There is beauty in simplicity.

The story itself was proof and evidence, but notthe kind which you want. It's all the proof I need.

Oh dear. I can just picture you now jumping up and down shouting "The Bible is true because God wrote it, and we know God wrote it because the Bible says he did!!!".

H.) Then you have completely misunderstood the message I am delivering and I may do just as well to be speaking with a brick wall. You barely understand what I am talking about, so don't let your imagination run wild with theories on what I am like or how I act, please.

The story isn't proof of anything. Do you believe Harry Potter also exists? How about your Sherlock Holmes buddy? Stories are just that...stories! They are subjective to the highest degree, subject to inaccuracy and errors, and often have a multitude of ways of interpreting them. Stories are hearsay, anecdotal, and almost worthless because of this.

I.) No, I do not believe they exist in the sense that they are physical people who have existed and who can be traced back as having ancestors/decsendants or any living relatives. Do I believe that stories, words with which we humans use to express our feelings, can communicate on a level deeper than literal or metaphorical? Ah, yes I do, and therein lies my answer.

Oh, and just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out that Sherlock Holmes' personality and mannerisms were based around a real person, Dr. Joseph Bell, and Dr. John Watson was essentially a self-insert character on Doyle's part.

By all means, share you explanation. I'm open to it and I will listen intently. But once again you misinterpret theidea of what 'evidence' is, because thre is not just one kind of evidence. To say that there is would be to close one's mind to, and write off an array of possibilities. This, I have covered in previous posts.

13.7 billion years ago, the observable universe was contained within a singularity. There was no space or time. Then, the Big Bang occurred, and the universe started to expand. It's been doing it ever since, and we have the background radiation, red & blue shift, and a plethora of other evidence in support of this fact. No Gods needed.

J.) ...How does this relate to what happened to my friend that night, at all? That's all well and good to say that the universe came into existance through the Big Bang(a theory I'm not quite keen to believe, but oh well), but how in the holy mother of anything does that account for what happened to my friend? I presented you with evidence in the fom of what happened to him, you refuse to see it as such, however, and thus block your mind off to the idea that there may be more than one kind of evidence.

You'll probably argue that God caused the Big Bang, because you keep using this mantra of "everything has a cause". Well, if everything has a cause, what caused God? Don't give me some bullshit answer like "God is eternal". Either accept that your argument "everything has a cause" is untrue, or explain what God's cause is.

K.) God was, and God is everything. When the universe came into existance, so to did God. When the Big Bang occured, so to did God. Now if you're little singularity can exist suddenly out of nowhere, and if God was also part of that singularity, then he is there. Don't give me ultimatum before you observe and think about my response.

It's based on evidence, alright. Just not the kind of evidence you wish to perceive. My explanation is not just an insert, and is certainly not ignorant. Don't take me for a fool.

Great, another fallacy. Ad hominem this time. Somehow it's *my* fault that I don't get your argument. Sorry, but that isn't how logic works. Better luck next time.

Ad hominem? Really? Where did I insult you at all, I merely pointed out that it is you who chooses to ignroe certain kinds of evidence because your perspective and perception is that there only is one kind of evidence. So yes, that is your fault, but no, that is not meant as an insult.

Present your evidence, and then we'll see if it stands up to rational thought. I didn't call you ignorant, I said you used the "argumentum ad ignorantum" fallacy. In other words, you formed an argument where you assumed something was true because it hadn't been disproven. In this case, you made the claim that "since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God".

L.) No, I did not assume it was because it hadn't been disproven, I assumed based on my understanding of God, and because there was no more likely explanation, that the arranger was God. If you have some other arranger which you can present, that seems more likely than God(and this is working from the assumption that you even understand God), then by all means, I would be willing to examine that idea.

Uh, a working understanding of the Bible...

I got that much. I wanted you to enlighten me with the appropriate passage.

M.) Go back and re-read H.) & I.), they demonstrate effectively the proper way of reading the Bible. You cannot hope to understand even one word of that book if you take it as bits and pieces to be taken ltierally or metaphorically. You must look at the underlying message of the book entire, and then perhaps you can understand it. Look at the bigger picture, it is much simpler than you would think.

Then what causes gravity to work? I firmly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of, as you mentioned, how quantum physics works. So prove to me that gravity will work every time by specifying it's cause.

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime around matter. That is what causes gravity. If an object curves spacetime, you get gravity, The bigger the object, the larger the curve, and the larger the pull of gravity.

Black holes are a prediction of this theory, since super-massive objects collapse in on themselves, and spacetime collapses with them, forming a gravity well so powerful that light can't escape.

[/quote]
N.) Eintstein's theory of relativity is something, correct me if I am wrong, has been brought into contention time and time again. As such it is still a theory, becaue it is a hypothesis supported by several 'facts' which may or may not be true. (Assumptions.)

A universal law such as gravity is something we do not understand, but which we know to work and be true. We may speculate and come rather close, but for the time being there is no certain 'fact' of gravity. On top of that, what do black holes have to do with anything we've been talking about?

I can't help but feel all this is a digression from the initial topic at hand, anyway. xP I was asked to present my very best evidence for the existence of God, and I did. However, it was taken in bits an pieces and cut up into billions of ways so as to look at it 'closer' when in doing so, the original evidence itself was destroyed completely. Look at what I said in M.) above. It's not the tiny parts which make it up, but the simplicty of the overall thing as a whole. You must look at the bigger picture.

And it seems, Tiberius, that you also address my posts in a similar fashion. Instead of taking them as a whole, a message delivered in it's entirety, you have taken to xamining each piece of my posts one-by-one, without examining what they look like together. So you have missed the underlying message.

You also asked me to specify certain passages from the Bible which would back up my point. Do you really want me to do that? It's impossible, because then I'd be breaking the Bible down into bits and pieces and tearing down the original message of the book as a whole. That doesn't mean you have to read the entire Bible, by the way, because guess what? I have not ever read on single page frm the Bible. Not a one.

But with my understanding and knowledge of it's message, I can see the big picture and what the Bible is trying to communicate. If you want a basic answer for this, here it is; peace, love, and understanding. That's it. That's the Bible.

-Watson

[Tiberius]

A.) Please excuse me if I sound rude, but this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. "You don't get definitions from observing the natural world." Then where do you get them? How can you get a definition without first having something to define? X does not equal X because you have a bunch of people who agree to it, especially if said people have never even observed X in the first place. It's as ridiculous as saying God exists because a bunch of people agree to it.

Definitions are the meaning of a word. To get a definition, you look the word up in the dictionary. When creating a new word, you use your observations and reasoning to create a definition. There is a difference. You were asking Zhalentine for his own definition of an already existing word. There is no point in doing so, and he told you this much. If everyone used their own definition for words, nobody would know what each other were talking about. Instead of asking people for their own definitions of words, explain what you actually mean by "coincidence" and "accident" and we can compare this with a standard definition of those words.

B.) You cannot properly create a definition without first having a clear understanding of the defined. To have that, you have to have encountered the thing in question in real life.

I agree, and this wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was arguing against your assertion that we get definitions from observation, and whilst this is true when creating a new word, it isn't when dealing with already defined ones. To get the definition of pre-defined words, you look up the definition in a dictionary. As Zhalentine and I have already said, making up your own definitions for words is chaotic and ridiculous.

D.) However I disagree with your second statement. You can understand the person and their reason for believing as they do, but not their belief if you do not share it. However, if you accept that person as a friend and don't view them as against you simply for thinking differently than you, you can have better insight and understanding into their train of thought.

You might know their reason for believing such a thing, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding. If you understand how someone can believe a position, there is no reason from your point of view not to follow that position along with that person.

See A.) Are you suggesting that we should view reality based on definition, rather than create definition based on reality? That's ridiculous.

No. I'm fine with creating definitions based on reality. What I'm not fine doing is creating personal definitions for pre-defined words, and then asking people to do the same in hopes of having a rational comparison. As I've said before, this leads to chaos. If I define a cloud as "a warm feeling inside", and you define it as "a dog with long legs", it leads to disagreement. All the while, the people with the actual standard definition of a cloud are looking at us in confusion.

E.) I agree with this and will concede a bit on the subject. However, if you work from the basis of their being a God, then you can understand that being(God) much better than if you work from the assumption that there is not a God.

Well that's a bit obvious. Assuming there is no God means you cannot understand anything about such a being, since from that perspective it doesn't exist. However, do not make the error of thinking that because assuming the existence of something you can logically deduce attributes, you can "understand" God as a reality. It doesn't work like that. If you start from an assumption in a logical argument, you cannot use the same argument to prove the assumption.

I'm not lecturing you, but admitting to a character fault is not absolving of it. You would do well to speak to people respectfully in a discussion. Otherwise, why would they want to understand your side at all?

So you claim to not be lecturing me, and then go on in the next sentence to lecture me. Jebus.

I'll speak respectfully when the argument given is logically sound. You currently don't have that luxury. Do some convincing arguing, stop wasting our time with meaningless drivel about personal definitions, and we might get somewhere. The theists here who are respected members of the community are the ones who at least try to have a decent conversation, to present their views, and to be logically coherent.

F.) This is a fairly nice representation of 'coincidence', the example you provided, and I cotend that it appears by mere chance that the two people took the course of action they did. But look at the bigger picture; why did A and B both go to Venice, and why did they meet up? I submit to you that, regardless of whether they simply bumped into each other or had a prior engagement with each other, the meeting itself was a planned course because A 'knew', in a sense, that he/she had to meet B, and vice versa for B.

Your argument makes no sense. For instance, assume person A knew person B from childhood, and then went to separate corners of the world for 20 years, without any contact whatsoever. If person A plans a holiday to Venice, and person B does the same (separately), and they meet up in Venice, it is a coincidence. There is now "plan" to meet up, no pre-ordained series of events. The two people had no contact for 20 years, and "just happened" to meet up in Venice because they "just happened" to book their holidays to the same destination at the same time. Nobody "knew" they were going to meet, nor did they "have" to as you seem to think.

If they were planning the meeting, or they "had" to meet up for some reason, it isn't coincidence, since the two events are connected pretty directly. Coincidence only occurs when those two events converge at some point but not on purpose.

G.) What was the quote I saw somewhere around here in a signature? It was something to the effect of "science is not a study of what is impossible or possible, but what is less likely and more likely." Observing the facts of the matter and the scenario that night, I can see no more likely explanation that does not jump through hoops and use flawed definitions than to say that God and the universe itself were conspiring to help and advise my friend that night. And that does not just mean 'God did it.' There is beauty in simplicity.

Your inability to see what is more likely has no affect on what happened. Your inability to come up with another explanation does not mean the only explanation that you have is the correct one. It's a standard argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy. We gave you an explanation, that it was a coincidence, and you have failed to disprove that explanation. Whilst it is not disproven, it is still a possibility. Throwing definitions around like they don't matter and quoting Holmes isn't going to do you any favours here. There is indeed beauty in simplicity. God, however, is not simple. Coincidence, is.

H.) Then you have completely misunderstood the message I am delivering and I may do just as well to be speaking with a brick wall. You barely understand what I am talking about, so don't let your imagination run wild with theories on what I am like or how I act, please.

Might I interject, that if you think I don't understand what you are talking about, you should attempt to explain yourself more clearly?

I.) No, I do not believe they exist in the sense that they are physical people who have existed and who can be traced back as having ancestors/decsendants or any living relatives. Do I believe that stories, words with which we humans use to express our feelings, can communicate on a level deeper than literal or metaphorical? Ah, yes I do, and therein lies my answer.

Cut the cryptic bullshit. Explain how a story is evidence / proof of God's existence, when stories are written by people, people who are fallible, subjective, and capable of lying or misrepresenting a point. Write a mistake down on paper and get enough people to believe it, and you have yourself a problem. This is why we rely on things other than anecdotal evidence to prove something.

J.) ...How does this relate to what happened to my friend that night, at all? That's all well and good to say that the universe came into existance through the Big Bang(a theory I'm not quite keen to believe, but oh well), but how in the holy mother of anything does that account for what happened to my friend? I presented you with evidence in the fom of what happened to him, you refuse to see it as such, however, and thus block your mind off to the idea that there may be more than one kind of evidence.

My apologies, I think I crossed threads somewhere.

In response to your story about your friend, it is quote possible that he was just in the right place at the right time. He didn't accept the ride, as you said, because he was being polite. He didn't ask you out because there were police cars. To assume that these things happened because God was guiding him is to say that God manipulates reality in such a way that would interfere with "free will" (or are you sensible and don't believe in such a thing?). The point is, to say that God was guiding him, without any actual evidence, is to be completely moronic. You have no reason to believe that God guides people. God isn't even in the story. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and your assumption that God guides us leads you to conclude that this is evidence of that. However, as I've already pointed out to you, you cannot prove an assumption is the assumption forms part of the basis of the argument.

K.) God was, and God is everything. When the universe came into existance, so to did God. When the Big Bang occured, so to did God. Now if you're little singularity can exist suddenly out of nowhere, and if God was also part of that singularity, then he is there. Don't give me ultimatum before you observe and think about my response.

So at some point in time, God didn't exist? I think that's what I'm getting from your argument. So please, if this is your view, explain what caused God to exist. You claim everything needs a cause. What is God's? Oh, and it wasn't an ultimatum, it was a dichotomy. Either everything has a cause, or it doesn't. Hence why I wanted (and still want) you to explain how God cannot have cause, given that you seem to think everything needs one.

Ad hominem? Really? Where did I insult you at all, I merely pointed out that it is you who chooses to ignroe certain kinds of evidence because your perspective and perception is that there only is one kind of evidence. So yes, that is your fault, but no, that is not meant as an insult.

Ad hominem's aren't about insults in general. They are about distracting from an argument because you draw attention to a supposed fault or flaw of the opponent. In this case, you assert (without evidence or reason) that the only reason I don't understand your argument is because I don't want to. It's a baseless claim, and completely untrue.

L.) No, I did not assume it was because it hadn't been disproven, I assumed based on my understanding of God, and because there was no more likely explanation, that the arranger was God. If you have some other arranger which you can present, that seems more likely than God(and this is working from the assumption that you even understand God), then by all means, I would be willing to examine that idea.

I already told you, simple coincidence presents a reasonable and rational conclusion that is far more likely, namely because the events are not connected by some supernatural unseen force. If they "just happened", they do not require further explanation. The same cannot be said for your God though, since the existence of such a being itself is a extraordinary claim. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud of the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have a book and your personal feelings. Somehow I think the good Holmes wouldn't be impressed.

M.) Go back and re-read H.) & I.), they demonstrate effectively the proper way of reading the Bible. You cannot hope to understand even one word of that book if you take it as bits and pieces to be taken ltierally or metaphorically. You must look at the underlying message of the book entire, and then perhaps you can understand it. Look at the bigger picture, it is much simpler than you would think.

As I've said repeatedly now, enlighten me. Present your evidence or piss off. Give me the section or sections of the book that support your point, and explain them. If you have to explain the underlying message too, do that as well! It's really not that hard. If you have a point which you claim is supported by your book, you should easily be able to explain it. Otherwise all I have to go on is your word, and I'm afraid I don't trust that one bit.

N.) Eintstein's theory of relativity is something, correct me if I am wrong, has been brought into contention time and time again. As such it is still a theory, becaue it is a hypothesis supported by several 'facts' which may or may not be true. (Assumptions.)

A universal law such as gravity is something we do not understand, but which we know to work and be true. We may speculate and come rather close, but for the time being there is no certain 'fact' of gravity. On top of that, what do black holes have to do with anything we've been talking about?

No, it's stood pretty well for the last 95 years. All evidence currently supports it. A "theory" in the scientific sense is not a "theory" in the general sense. A scientific theory is the best explanation which covers all the facts. It has surpassed hypothesis stage because experiments have confirmed it. There are no assumptions behind the facts that science has extrapolated, other than the assumption upon which science lies: materialism. Having said that, if materialism is proven untrue, it doesn't mean that matter and energy don't exist, just that there might be more to matter and energy. The facts behind Einstein's theory would remain the same.

Oh, and black holes are gravity wells in space that were predicted by Einstein, and we have a pretty good idea of where some of them are, further confirming Einstein's theory. When a theory gives predictions, and these predictions come true, it's a pretty good bolster for the theory's veracity.

I can't help but feel all this is a digression from the initial topic at hand, anyway. xP I was asked to present my very best evidence for the existence of God, and I did. However, it was taken in bits an pieces and cut up into billions of ways so as to look at it 'closer' when in doing so, the original evidence itself was destroyed completely. Look at what I said in M.) above. It's not the tiny parts which make it up, but the simplicty of the overall thing as a whole. You must look at the bigger picture.

This is the problem, you cannot look at the bigger picture whilst there parts of your picture that are supported by fallacious logic. If one part of your picture is wrong, you cannot hope to suggest that the entirety of it is correct.

And it seems, Tiberius, that you also address my posts in a similar fashion. Instead of taking them as a whole, a message delivered in it's entirety, you have taken to xamining each piece of my posts one-by-one, without examining what they look like together. So you have missed the underlying message.

If you wish, I could simply not break up your post into sections and then write my criticisms afterwards. It would be the same words, but the formatting would be terrible. If your argument cannot withstand scrutiny, being picked apart, and poked at, it isn't a good argument at all. The best arguments can be sliced and diced and withstand every counter-argument successfully. Yours can't.

You also asked me to specify certain passages from the Bible which would back up my point. Do you really want me to do that? It's impossible, because then I'd be breaking the Bible down into bits and pieces and tearing down the original message of the book as a whole. That doesn't mean you have to read the entire Bible, by the way, because guess what? I have not ever read on single page frm the Bible. Not a one.

But with my understanding and knowledge of it's message, I can see the big picture and what the Bible is trying to communicate. If you want a basic answer for this, here it is; peace, love, and understanding. That's it. That's the Bible.

-Watson

So you base your belief around a book you have not read, and make assumptions about a God you believe in because (fuck, I don't know why you believe in it if that is the case), and your proof is nothing other than you like the story of peace, love, and understanding. I have plenty of stories like that, and all of them are more peaceful and loving than the Bible is. You can claim the Bible is a peaceful book all you like, but you haven't read it, and your claim doesn't reflect the book itself. There are plenty of hate-filled messages in the Bible, plenty of violence, and plenty of misunderstanding. Perhaps you should read it...you might learn what is actually in it.

[Watson]

Okay! I'm finally capable of writing out a decent reply and will try to do so in as concise a manner as I possibly can. Heeeeeere we go!

Definitions are the meaning of a word. To get a definition, you look the word up in the dictionary. When creating a new word, you use your observations and reasoning to create a definition. There is a difference. You were asking Zhalentine for his own definition of an already existing word. There is no point in doing so, and he told you this much. If everyone used their own definition for words, nobody would know what each other were talking about. Instead of asking people for their own definitions of words, explain what you actually mean by "coincidence" and "accident" and we can compare this with a standard definition of those words.

Then we can assert that observances lead to words, and words lead to definitions, because obviously if we have a word we must define it so that we know what it means. Thus, the word is the standard set, that is how language works. The definition merely comes after the fact, with the preconceived idea of what a certain word is supposed to mean being incorporated into our minds at an early age.

I.E.- I know that to be a 'cloud' the criteria is to be white and fluffy and in the sky, because that is the meaning of the word cloud in the English language.(Note: there is a distinction between meaning and definition.) It's what I've been taught since birth, if I want to point to that white, fluffy thing in the sky and have people understand what I am talking about, I must say the word 'cloud.'

Therefore, whenever I see something that is white, fluffy, and in the sky I know that it is a cloud. When I observe something that is white, fluffy, and in the sky in real life, I can then define it as a cloud because that's the meaning of cloud.

Now, when we come to the idea of a standard definition, if the standard definition of something is flawed, then you would certainly agree we must rely more on our observances and our knowledge of the meaning of the word, for example the word coincidence, than the definition. Because if the definition is flawed we cannot possibly measure it up to the real thing.

In this case, I have pointed out several times that the definition of coincidence is inherrantly incorrect based on examination of it's own dictionary definition.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53078

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I.) And on top of that, I have outlined where the dictionary definition itself can be faulty and used against itself in contradiction. "happenstance (something which might have been arranged but is actually accidental.)" By it's nature, this definition rules out and simultaneously confirms that the perceived 'coincidence' could actually have been arranged. So in the case where something seems purely random or uncaused, the actual event was arranged and the most likely candidate since you surely cannot produce any other being in His place, is God.

I would also like to point out that I pretty much knew I would be accoted for using 'my own' definition of the word coincidence.

I agree, and this wasn't what I was arguing at all. I was arguing against your assertion that we get definitions from observation, and whilst this is true when creating a new word, it isn't when dealing with already defined ones. To get the definition of pre-defined words, you look up the definition in a dictionary. As Zhalentine and I have already said, making up your own definitions for words is chaotic and ridiculous.

See my answer above.

You might know their reason for believing such a thing, but there is a difference between knowing and understanding. If you understand how someone can believe a position, there is no reason from your point of view not to follow that position along with that person.

I agree, there is a difference between knowing and understanding. And if what you say were the case, all good detectives and all good criminal profilers would also be serial killers and mass murderers, because their very job is to understand the POV of these people and to see from that person's perspective, without actually agreeing with it at all. It is called empathy and it is a human trait to express such a sentiment.

See A.) Are you suggesting that we should view reality based on definition, rather than create definition based on reality? That's ridiculous.

No. I'm fine with creating definitions based on reality. What I'm not fine doing is creating personal definitions for pre-defined words, and then asking people to do the same in hopes of having a rational comparison. As I've said before, this leads to chaos. If I define a cloud as "a warm feeling inside", and you define it as "a dog with long legs", it leads to disagreement. All the while, the people with the actual standard definition of a cloud are looking at us in confusion.

Once again, see my answer above on the nature of definitons and words.

E.) I agree with this and will concede a bit on the subject. However, if you work from the basis of their being a God, then you can understand that being(God) much better than if you work from the assumption that there is not a God.

Well that's a bit obvious. Assuming there is no God means you cannot understand anything about such a being, since from that perspective it doesn't exist. However, do not make the error of thinking that because assuming the existence of something you can logically deduce attributes, you can "understand" God as a reality. It doesn't work like that. If you start from an assumption in a logical argument, you cannot use the same argument to prove the assumption.

I am not using the assumption to prove the understanding. I believe and have faith that God exists(I don't assume He does, an assumption is baseless), and from that belief I recognize God as He is around me. Now, due to God's nature, when one recognizes and acknowledge's His existance, they can logically deduce attributes of Him which lead to their understanding. Having accepted God as He is, I can understand him, as I would a good friend.

I'm not lecturing you, but admitting to a character fault is not absolving of it. You would do well to speak to people respectfully in a discussion. Otherwise, why would they want to understand your side at all?

So you claim to not be lecturing me, and then go on in the next sentence to lecture me. Jebus.

Advice and lecture are not the same thing. I'm offering my advice to you, not forcing it upon you or teaching it to you as a teacher to a student would in a lecture.

I'll speak respectfully when the argument given is logically sound. You currently don't have that luxury. Do some convincing arguing, stop wasting our time with meaningless drivel about personal definitions, and we might get somewhere. The theists here who are respected members of the community are the ones who at least try to have a decent conversation, to present their views, and to be logically coherent.

1.) I am not, nor have I ever been arguing. If I were arguing, the end goal would be to have you agree with me and have been 'converted' to my side of the spectrum. That is not my aim. My aim is to hold a discussion, which is not synonymous with argument. In a discussion, one simply wishes to understand the other side better, to empathize with it and hopefully have the other person empathize with & understand their point of view, as well. That's what I'm trying to do. Not too sure about you.

2.) You're the one who digressed the discussion from the original topic into the discussion of personal definitions. Instead of trying to understand my point of view on that subject, you decided to counter my views on it and in so doing you muddled the original intent of the discussion.

3.) No offense, but from what I have read on this forum, the 'respected theists' here are the ones who choose to keep their mouths shut and who don't present a large enough 'threat' to your world-view to be viewed as bad. I'm not insulting or accusing them at all; it's an imposing thing, to come into a place where so many are so misunderstanding of your beliefs and to try and discuss them. I'm merely observing that the 'respect' you give your theist members only holds so long as they hold their tongue.

Take fr0d0, for example, who seems to be fairly well liked around here. From what I've seen he's a very smart individual, and his points are very logically sound. From what i can tell, without his knowledge, he's the guy you can all point to and say "See! We can get along with Christians too!...if they don't disagree with us enough to be a problem." When he starts making sense and raising heavy points, however, the so-called 'respect' is down and it's anybody's game who gets to rip fr0d0's beliefs apart limb-from-limb this time.

Your argument makes no sense. For instance, assume person A knew person B from childhood, and then went to separate corners of the world for 20 years, without any contact whatsoever. If person A plans a holiday to Venice, and person B does the same (separately), and they meet up in Venice, it is a coincidence. There is now "plan" to meet up, no pre-ordained series of events. The two people had no contact for 20 years, and "just happened" to meet up in Venice because they "just happened" to book their holidays to the same destination at the same time. Nobody "knew" they were going to meet, nor did they "have" to as you seem to think.

If they were planning the meeting, or they "had" to meet up for some reason, it isn't coincidence, since the two events are connected pretty directly. Coincidence only occurs when those two events converge at some point but not on purpose.

What I am suggesting is that there is no more likely explanation than that a God intervened and affected the world around them. He did not, as you might suggest now, interfere with free will, but He let A and B know that there was a certain place they had to be at a certain time, and left it open to them whether or not to act on that. Then, when the two did choose the path that was there for them all along, God affected the universe in such a way as to get them there at the right time to meet up with each other. The idea that all of this is 'less likely' than the idea that it 'just happened' is prepostorous.

Your inability to see what is more likely has no affect on what happened. Your inability to come up with another explanation does not mean the only explanation that you have is the correct one. It's a standard argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy. We gave you an explanation, that it was a coincidence, and you have failed to disprove that explanation. Whilst it is not disproven, it is still a possibility. Throwing definitions around like they don't matter and quoting Holmes isn't going to do you any favours here. There is indeed beauty in simplicity. God, however, is not simple. Coincidence, is.

See above. This point is fundamentally flawed at it's core because, to suggest coincidence is to surely dismiss simplicity completely! For a coincidence to have occured, several events must have transpired all at once in a converging way, with seemingly no cause and for no reason at all, and then to have gathered in the one single event, the coincidence. If these events are all interconnected at the convergent point, then why and how were each of them drawn to the convergent point?

God is simple, and your misunderstanding of His nature as such is the reason for your inability to see simplicity for what it really is.

God is a mere friend, an ally, one who walks beside us at all times and who offers sagely advice when it is asked of Him. He knows of the path a person must walk and will do all He can to help them along the path, for it is He who created it for the person. That is what a good friend should do, and if ever there were a more simple ideal, I don't know of it.

Might I interject, that if you think I don't understand what you are talking about, you should attempt to explain yourself more clearly?

haha, Figure it out for yourself Mr. Open-minded-Smart-Guy. Clearly you are intellectually above me, should you not be capable of understanding my words very easily and knowing just what I mean?

The thing is, you don't understand because you have not even opened your mind to my view of life and what it is to be me. I do not say this out of malice, but because I know that all people are capable of empathy, if only they would open themselves to it completely. It upsets me, therefore, to see that you have not. And hence why I discuss these things with people such as you, to hope that you will come into a better understanding of what I believe and that I can further my understanding.

Cut the cryptic bullshit. Explain how a story is evidence / proof of God's existence, when stories are written by people, people who are fallible, subjective, and capable of lying or misrepresenting a point. Write a mistake down on paper and get enough people to believe it, and you have yourself a problem. This is why we rely on things other than anecdotal evidence to prove something.

It's not cryptic, it's very simple. See my previous response above about simplicity being beautiful and about opening oneself to empathy. A story is evidence if one recognizes it for what it is, and believes that it is evidence. Furthermore this is not merely a story, but a real event which occured and involved very real people. How do you know this? Well, you don't, you merely have to take my word for it. You have to believe me.

In response to your story about your friend, it is quote possible that he was just in the right place at the right time. He didn't accept the ride, as you said, because he was being polite. He didn't ask you out because there were police cars. To assume that these things happened because God was guiding him is to say that God manipulates reality in such a way that would interfere with "free will" (or are you sensible and don't believe in such a thing?). The point is, to say that God was guiding him, without any actual evidence, is to be completely moronic. You have no reason to believe that God guides people. God isn't even in the story. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and your assumption that God guides us leads you to conclude that this is evidence of that. However, as I've already pointed out to you, you cannot prove an assumption is the assumption forms part of the basis of the argument.

God is in the story. What, do you expect Him to manifest Himself in the form of a lowly beggar or some cliche thing, and to have told my friend "you must be in a certain place at a certain time, or face grave consequences"? That is not how God works, my friend, He shows Himself in ways which leave it up to us to believe.

And another thing, you say that for a God to exist, there would have to be no free will...then you go on to state that you do not believe in free will. That's an enormous hole in your logic. If there is no free will, and your view of God is that free will would not exist if He did, then why can't God exist...?

And I do not assume that God exists, I believe that He exists because of the evidence I have seen, namely, events like this where the most likely explanation is God, due to His nature being such that he would present Himself in this way
See here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid52907
And here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53042
Read both posts, please, all the way through, for my explanation and examination on the nature of free will.

So at some point in time, God didn't exist? I think that's what I'm getting from your argument. So please, if this is your view, explain what caused God to exist. You claim everything needs a cause. What is God's? Oh, and it wasn't an ultimatum, it was a dichotomy. Either everything has a cause, or it doesn't. Hence why I wanted (and still want) you to explain how God cannot have cause, given that you seem to think everything needs one.

I admit that this is the weakest point in my logic, but what I said still stands. According to you, within quantum mechanics, things can simply 'pop' into existance. If that is true, and your theory of how the universe was created via a singularity is true, then couldn't the universe have simply 'popped' into existance? Since I recognize God as being the entire universe, and being synonymous with it, then that could mean that God merely 'popped' into existance when once there was nothingness.

Ad hominem's aren't about insults in general. They are about distracting from an argument because you draw attention to a supposed fault or flaw of the opponent. In this case, you assert (without evidence or reason) that the only reason I don't understand your argument is because I don't want to. It's a baseless claim, and completely untrue.

I assert that you do not understand it because you do not want to, but only because you willingly close your mind to certain trains of thought and evidences which are before you. That is not baseless, it is quite true.

I already told you, simple coincidence presents a reasonable and rational conclusion that is far more likely, namely because the events are not connected by some supernatural unseen force. If they "just happened", they do not require further explanation. The same cannot be said for your God though, since the existence of such a being itself is a extraordinary claim. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud of the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You have a book and your personal feelings. Somehow I think the good Holmes wouldn't be impressed.

My friend, you clearly lack an enormous amount of understanding in the way of Sherlock Holmes! Not only would he not have been proud of that statement, I whole-heartedly believe he would have been appalled at the very idea. Sherlock's entire methodology relies on drawing large inferences from small clues. He searched for small hints as to the individuality of the person he was after, rather than looking for the same kind of clues to find every single person.

Holmes took deductive reasoning very seriously, in that he would observe the result of a situation, and then work backward from that result, considering all possible scenarios which could have amounted to that. He was broad-minded enough to work through each possibility that could have occured within his mind, and then pick the most likely of those out of the lot. He had to believe in the person he was chasing's existance, based on the clues of individuality which they left behind. So all he has were his beliefs, too.

Let's take the case of my friend, who we will hence refer to a J:

The result is this: J wound up in the right place at the right time so that he was able to comfort his family and be there when they needed him. How did this come about? He left the party early, he decided not to go to my house, his cousin denied picking him up, he walked a ta certain rate, and a person he knew showed up to lure him into the house where he needed to be at that time.

Now, looking at this evidence, there are many likely explanations as to how it occured: simple chance can be ruled out as low on the spectrum, because that would suggest that all these events were not inter-connected, and obviously they were because of their convergant point that led J to the place he needed to be.

So then, we're looking for a culprit now, since we have very nearly eliminated the idea of a coincidence. What clues has this cuprit left behind as to their identity? Well, they were very obviously trying to help J, since the end result of this scenario was beneficial to him.

That means the culprit is a friend, not a foe. For the culprit to have been a friend, that means we are looking for a sentient being, something which has actual thought processes.

We can also deduce that since this friend knew of the events to occur before they happened, the friend is all-knowing of the world around J, or at least extremely clairovoyant. This is someone with exstensive knowledge of the choices available in life for J, and also of the path which he resides on, namely his life.

One final deduction we may make is that this culprit is capable of leaving behind evidence of his individuality seemingly without having been there at all, since obviously the only proofs we have of His existance are these clues he has left us.

Therefore, we have deduced:
-random chance is less likely because it suggests no inter-connectivity between events, when we see clearly that these events did have a connected result.*
-the culprit is a friend because the event benefited J.
-the culprit is sentient because non-sentient life forms cannot be considered 'friends.'
-the culprit is all-knowing or clairovoyant, since it was aware of the events to come and of what path would most benefit J.
-the culprit is capable of leaving behindclues, seemingly without having been there.

You figure it out. Who does the culprit sound like to you?

*you may at this point suggest "Well, the convergent point is the inter-connectivity" but I counter and ask "then how and why did seemingly unattached events converge at all?" You cannot suggest that it 'just happened' that way, since we have already ruled that out as less likely.

As I've said repeatedly now, enlighten me. Present your evidence or piss off. Give me the section or sections of the book that support your point, and explain them. If you have to explain the underlying message too, do that as well! It's really not that hard. If you have a point which you claim is supported by your book, you should easily be able to explain it. Otherwise all I have to go on is your word, and I'm afraid I don't trust that one bit.

This would be like cutting off a human arm and showing it to an alien, then expecting the alien to know exactly what humans are like based on that arm. If the alien has never seen a human and has no knowledge or understanding of it, then it isn' tgoing to undertsand the function of the arm, either.(this is assuming the alien is not humanoid at all.) The Bible itself is the entire message, and I already explained it to you in three simple words. Three words which you don't understand at all.

I plan on posting a topic about my views on religion later, which will expand upon some of my beliefs. However, you are still snipping and cutting into my views at all odd angles, while ignoring the bigger picture at hand which they create.

Here's a highlight of some explanation into the Bible:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2559-pos...l#pid53078

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Book of Genesis is in the Old Testament, no? Regarding the Old Testament: that was God learning. God sees the world through the eyes of love, but at one time, He did not fully understand this Himself. So within the Old Testament is God laying down groundwork, and then, like a child playing with His new friend, He had to learn the proper and improper way of treating those He loved.

Within the New Testament is Jesus, whom is God's way of manifesting Himself in a way which humans are all capable of recognizing; a man who could perform extraordinary feats, and with extraordinary understanding of man and God and the relationship between the two. Jesus foresook the actions of God in the Old Testament, as a way of showing that God had changed.

"The sins of the fathers", y'know?

N.) Eintstein's theory of relativity is something, correct me if I am wrong, has been brought into contention time and time again. As such it is still a theory, becaue it is a hypothesis supported by several 'facts' which may or may not be true. (Assumptions.)

A universal law such as gravity is something we do not understand, but which we know to work and be true. We may speculate and come rather close, but for the time being there is no certain 'fact' of gravity. On top of that, what do black holes have to do with anything we've been talking about?

No, it's stood pretty well for the last 95 years. All evidence currently supports it. A "theory" in the scientific sense is not a "theory" in the general sense.[/quote]
Oh, so now we're making up our own definitions for things, are we? HMMMMMMMM.

A scientific theory is the best explanation which covers all the facts. It has surpassed hypothesis stage because experiments have confirmed it. There are no assumptions behind the facts that science has extrapolated, other than the assumption upon which science lies: materialism. Having said that, if materialism is proven untrue, it doesn't mean that matter and energy don't exist, just that there might be more to matter and energy. The facts behind Einstein's theory would remain the same.

I agree, a scientific theory covers all the known scientific facts available to it, but that's just it; it only covers the scientific facts. If your position that we cannot use an assumption to prove that the assumption itself is true, then you cannot say materialism is true simply on the grouns that all you can prove is materialism, by examining materialistic things. Examine the world from different view-points and looking for different kinds of evidence, and you will find that there are othe things which are true in other senses, other than materialism.

This is the problem, you cannot look at the bigger picture whilst there parts of your picture that are supported by fallacious logic. If one part of your picture is wrong, you cannot hope to suggest that the entirety of it is correct.

If you wish, I could simply not break up your post into sections and then write my criticisms afterwards. It would be the same words, but the formatting would be terrible. If your argument cannot withstand scrutiny, being picked apart, and poked at, it isn't a good argument at all. The best arguments can be sliced and diced and withstand every counter-argument successfully. Yours can't.

The best arguments can be picked apart and poked at while still retaining their original message, but only if the person doing the picking understands that message to begin with. Because you refuse to understand the biger picture, all you can look at is the indivdual small parts, and claim they are disjointed because you are not taking a step back, and observing the larger picture.

It's not a matter of your format, it's a matter of your understanding and grasp of that which you are picking apart.

You also asked me to specify certain passages from the Bible which would back up my point. Do you really want me to do that? It's impossible, because then I'd be breaking the Bible down into bits and pieces and tearing down the original message of the book as a whole. That doesn't mean you have to read the entire Bible, by the way, because guess what? I have not ever read on single page frm the Bible. Not a one.

But with my understanding and knowledge of it's message, I can see the big picture and what the Bible is trying to communicate. If you want a basic answer for this, here it is; peace, love, and understanding. That's it. That's the Bible.

-Watson

So you base your belief around a book you have not read, and make assumptions about a God you believe in because (fuck, I don't know why you believe in it if that is the case), and your proof is nothing other than you like the story of peace, love, and understanding. I have plenty of stories like that, and all of them are more peaceful and loving than the Bible is. You can claim the Bible is a peaceful book all you like, but you haven't read it, and your claim doesn't reflect the book itself. There are plenty of hate-filled messages in the Bible, plenty of violence, and plenty of misunderstanding. Perhaps you should read it...you might learn what is actually in it.
[/quote]
And still you examine the little pieces, you see the 'violence' as simply violence, the hatred as simply hatred...God had to learn, too, but because you don't understand His nature, you can't hope to understand His message, either. I don't make assumptions about God. If God created this world around us, and gave it to us to live in, then I would say that makes him a pretty fucking loving God. He views the world through the eyes of love, but even he did not understand true love, at one time. I don't need to have read the book to understand the message contained within, which is a beautifully simple message: peace, love, and understanding.

That is it, Adrian, it's not complex or convoluted. My knowledge of the Bible, my understanding of God, is drawn from my observances of the real world around me, not the book itself. But the book is merely an outlet which speaks to those thoughts I have already concluded on my own, and, I am in the process of reading the Bible. So far, it is still completely what I knew it as.

Perhaps you should RE-read the Bible...since science is based upon RE-search...you might learn something new about what is actually in it.

-Watson