Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

Jesus tittyfucking Christ, here we go.

I've got a better idea. Instead of me spending a lot of time that I don't have right now typing all of the ones I've learned out, why don't you go read the Bible and look for some of them there. I'm sure some of them will match up with lessons that you, too, have learned throughout your life. Unless you haven't learned anything at all, yet, and only think you have.

I've got a better idea. How about you tell me what laws you're talking about instead of me engaging in a wild goosechase trying to find the shit you've cherry picked into a belief system?

How so?

You wrote:

The experiences I am refering to, however, are not simply 'Goddidit' answers at all; they are honest observations of phenomena that I have experiened and found to be compatable with the exstence of God, if not, indicative of such a conclusion.

When you find experiences to be indicative of the conclusion "Goddidit", then you are necessarily referring to answers in which, *drumroll* Goddidit!

It's not hard to understand. Words have meaning.

---

As I said, my approach is to observe humanity and honestly look at it in comparison to God and my understanding of Him; it something doesn't fit or make sense, I attempt to find a better conclusion than the one I have come to before.

That would be great if it wasn't riddled with rationalization.

---

I'm confused as to where rationalization is wrong...please explain.

Look up the definition to rationalization and come back to me. I'm tired of spoonfeeding.

Which are?

What did I say about the Bible?

What the hell does the Bible have to do with the observations YOU'VE made in the real world? Are you paying attention?

A part of himself; like amputating a limb to save the greater whole.

So it was God himself that needed saving since he sacrificed part of himself to save the greater whole.

'and went up to heaven to become whole again.' would be more accurate.

1. Limbs don't grow back.
2. It's not much of a sacrifice if you get the thing you're sacrificing right back again.

True. I have no contention with that. What is your point? lol

Buddha's teachings wouldn't have to match up with a God.

One in which you can cherry pick what you'd like to believe. Makes sense.

No, one in which I choose whether or not to believe in this, that, or the other thing. Man is not innerrant. Man wrote the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is not innerrant. I'm not cherry-picking if I'm believing only in the lessons I've learned and observed in the real world about humanity and God.

1. If you're making the distinction that there are errors in the Bible, and still contend that you believe in it, this is cherry picking to fit your personal set of beliefs. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I can say i believe in the constitution, but the second amendment needs to go and was written in error. This is cherry picking what I would like to believe in and support - it reinforces my ideology. Do you understand now?

Well that's a stupid counter argument. Belief is something wholly different from a nipple. Belief can only be subjectively proven. A nipple could potentially be objectively proven.

That's not the fucking point. If you had bother to read, you would see that it was about choice and your phrasing. I made an analogy to a physical entity so you could see the error in your phrasing, but I guess it takes a second or third try to get the brain cells rubbing together properly.

---

This is where we differ on opinions; I believe that God is a part of you, so to claim thatyou do not believe in God is a lie to you and I; from MY point of view, at least.

This is 1 step away from dictating moral code and pushing for theistic legislation - after all, God is in everyone, and we should all obey his rules.

---

We should, but we don't all have to. That's why it's a choice.

It's not a choice when you don't believe a God exists. Is this that hard of a concept to grasp? This is the same as me telling you that you have a choice to obey the underpants gnomes in my sock drawer or not. It makes no fucking sense.

A rejection of belief, if belief truly does exist, is a denial of that belief.

Not necessarily.

A rejection in this context means to refuse to accept or acknowledge.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...o3=&h=0000

A denial is the act of asserting that something alleged is not true.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...h=00000000

One is an assertion, the other is not. Words have meanings.

I am proposing that the belief exists,

The belief exists - whether or not the belief lies on information that is true is the issue.

and that I can use my understanding of that to predict what he may or may not do for denying what is truly there.

1. Saying "what is truly there" is begging the question and making a false assumption as to the truth of your belief.

2. Rejection is not necessarily denial.

Just like I can predict that a man who denies that a speeding truck is coming toward him, when it very definitely is, will not move out of the way.

Horrible analogy, as you're assuming the truth of your argument when you haven't presented evidence to support such a conclusion.