Atheism

[Sam]

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

Science has never been the realm of Christianity, nor Judaism, nor any of the major religions IIRC. You're chasing your own tail with that one.

So what your saying is you never will voice any opinion in discussions of science and reference it to religion?

Because, the last time I checked the Church has recently begun to accept Evoloution! A Scientific Principle. It would seem to me that rather than me chasing my tail, as it was. You are trying to have your cake and eat it to!

You see there have been many, many times when a new scientific discovery is made and the church eventually accepts it, surely if you are right in your assertion that 'Science has never been the realm ...' they should have just shrugged it of as unimportant?

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence.

Then you fail to address my belief at all.

How can I fail to address your belief when I am yet to hear exactly what it is ... or see this reasoning for myself. Maybe rather than fobbing me off with such BS you could actually share your ideas in your own words, much as I am doing now?

Let me know if thats too much to ask though

Example #1

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accommodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

You're unfamiliar with Augustine then? What I address is reasoning as presented in scripture and other sources.

Funnily enough I am unfamiliar with Augustine, perhaps again you could just explain how you see your beliefs and we can go from there?

You know for someone who, earlier in this thread was demanding 'one tangible example etc...' you seem unwilling to provide specifics yourself. It seems a little disingenous to me.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

As you are supposedly attacking my "God hypothesis" I would expect you to be familiar with what is globally accepted definition. Try this

I'm not attacking anything, I'm just voicing my opinions in reasonable debate. And I am fairly familiar with most definitions, I'm just trying to pin down yours so I know where I stand!

It is ad homien to try and lend credance to your definition by saying it is globally accepted without any evidence, alll you quote is one website. Do you have a statistical survey to show that a majority of Christians around the world accept the definition you are providing?

From reading the page you posted I fail to see how these triats are 'reasoned neccesity' the term that came to mind was more 'convienient idea'. I think that after reading this, our little debate here may not ever get resolved, you are willing to accept what I see a fallacious reasoning and I am only willing to accept something more tangible or at least supported by some form of observation. I don't think my requirement is unreasonable because we hold absolutely everything else to that standard ... Why should 'God' be arbitrarily defined outside of that scope?

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry, becuase I have given one IDEA of what might constitute proof you are noe demanding that I (A 2nd Year Earth & Environmental Science Student) would go about analysisng a hugely complex event and then how if all investigations failed would atribute it to God?

And you said asking for evidence of God was absurd?

I would assume, that such an event would have to be analysed in terms of the currently accepted rules of nature, if these where found to be wanting a new theory would have to explain the event pls everything that went before it ... if that was not possible then it could be attributed to something outside of nature i.e. God.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept your idea of a being who is arbitrarily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal; omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

You continue to present the straw man that is not the Christian God. You seem to have little to know conception of the Christian God, so your rational position is hardly surprising. I haven't claimed that you should be supernaturally informed.

I'm trying to grasp this God concept you keep mentioning but the only posotive reference you have provided is a masterstroke ob abstract reasoning ... I'll have a read through it but so far I fail to see anything that as yet I have not been aware of when reffering to your God. Perhaps you could point out where what I have said above is in contradiction to your Ideas?

You are correct. Just as you, with the dismissal of God have to leave the possibility that you could be wrong, I have to leave open the possibility that I may be wrong in asserting that there can be no acceptable evidence.

If you claim lack of evidence as your reason for disbelief, you have equally to the small possibility of evidence for God, the small possibility of there actually being any acceptable evidence. I don't see how you could make such a claim without having any idea what evidence would be acceptable. Therefore the claim is nullified.

I do accept that I cannot know for definite whether or not there is a God, I like to think my arguments above are set out to try and argue against any particular religion/god hypothesis.

I have already posited one idea f acceptable evdience and have said that given such proof I would accept the existence og God so why is my claim nullified?

Sam