Atheism

[Sam]

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

The two are separate subjects, neither are about the other. They can reference each other withing those boundaries, but not proclaim authority over what isn't their realm.

Okay ... so what your saying is that they are seperate, but can comment on each other but, their comments aren't valid?

It would seem that if they are seperate subjects as you claim that they could not reference each with any merit or point at all, needless to say I disagree with that statement.

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!

The church has always accepted it. Only modern error has been any different.

I'm sorry, for a second there it looked like you claimed the church has always accepted evoloution. Surely you don't believe that? I think it is reasonably well documented invarious forms of literature that many bishops and cardinals still do not accept it as fact.

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

It's you that is jumping in asserting my beliefs. Now suddenly it's me the bad guy for your lack of understanding. Forgive me for your ignorance. I am not your educator by default.

I haven't asserted your belief's, I have made comments based on my experience of the kind of God that other christians have described to me.

How can you possibly say that me requesting a description of your beliefs is ignorance? or a lack of understanding? You have never expressed exactly what they are so I am working with what I have.

I have (and never would) ask you to be my educator Fr0d0 I have merely asked you to clarify your beliefs so I can know exactly where you are arguing from ... as of yet, you have not done so.

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.

And I should respond to this reversal of the point of this thread why? All I'm here for is to here this concrete reasoning of yours. Nothing more.

How have I reversed the thread? By asking for clarification of a point of contension? My sincere apologies if you feel that way ... How silly of me to assume that because you where questioning me I could in turn question you!

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?

You're moving the goalposts. You asked for an accurate definition of the Christian God, which I provided.

ALL Christians agree on one particular occurrence of the Nicene Creed. All of them. Again, it is you, who declares ignorance, that declares this. You think casual observance takes precedence over fact? How strange.

The basis for all these beliefs is the bible, if you want to go to the source.

*Reads his posts* Hmmmmm ... I don't see where I have ever said that my personal observances are more valid than anything else. I'm merely expressing my views in a polite discussion.

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.

So all newly discovered facts are in fact proofs of God and not, as we all think, additions to our knowledge of nature. Fantastic. I must tell Kyu!

(I'll carry on later - out of time now)

And just where is that I said that?

What I said was that a new phonomena would have to be analysed within the currently accepted 'Laws of Nature' if it was found to be outside of these laws, a new theory would need to be generated. This theory would have to account for the New Phonomena whilst also accounting for everything the old Theory did as-well and also stand up to scrutiny.

If it was impossible to reconcile this new phonomena with a theory that also could be applied to the rest of the universe then we could start to consider other possibilities i.e. God

Sam