Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

What makes you think there's a God in the first place, that is mysterious? You believe in God when there's no evidence of him, when we question him you more or less say he "works in mysterious ways".

Agnostic atheists say they don't know that God doesn't absolutely exist, because that's a logical fallacy - the Negative Proof fallacy. Agnostic atheists such as myself, can't know that - so we accept that we can be wrong.

That's different to believing in something, at least ostensibly without any evidence and then when questioned simply saying that it's "mysterious" - if it's that bloody mysterious, if it's so mysterious that you basically can't seem to give any evidence at all, why do you think he exists?

As I said, what makes you think there's a God in the first place, that is mysterious?

EvF

First, it seems to me, EvF, that you are taking things out of context. When I said I didn't know, I was not talking about God in general or the issue as to whether God exists, I was merely saying that I do not know all the reasons why God does what He does or allows what He allows. I do not see much difference in that than someone who puts all their trust in the scientific method and then concluding on some point that they do not know. (Or do people who put all their trust in the scientific method have all the answers to all life's questions?)

Second, you sound like a broken record in saying that Christians believe in God without evidence. I thought we covered that. I do think there is evidence for God. Before I mentioned the fossil record. Now I will mention the universe. It exists as does life in the universe. That fact is evidence. You look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. I look at this evidence and say that it is evidence of God. So to say that I believe in God without evidence is not an accurate statement. You could certainly conclude that I believe in God based on evidence that you do not accept as evidencing God. The situation is similar to a hung jury in a murder trial. All the jurors hear the same evidence. Some conclude from the evidence one thing and some conclude something else. But I think it is not rational to say that one decision is based on evidence and one is not. The fact is that Christian and atheist have all the same evidence. To a very large degree, the facts are the facts. I think where we really differ is in our conclusions from those facts based on the filters or presuppositions we run them through to interpret the facts. Now I'm sure over the years you have heard many reasons/evidence that people use for believing in God. To say that all of them then believe in God witout evidence I think is to redefine the word "evidence" to your own liking instead of using it in the usual sense.

Because we are not claiming anything but you are. We don't know what caused the universe and we admit that because we lack knowledge on that subject. You on the other hand claim that some supernatural being that is non-temporal created everything without a shred of evidence to back up your assertions. If you claim there is a god despite total lack of evidence, then it is expected that you should know something of it that may of caused you to believe in it, no?

See my response to EvF above as I think it applies here also.

When I say I don't know I mean I don't know I don't go off and attribute my lack of understanding to some invisible guy in the sky and his desire not to reveal it to me.

I think you, like EvF and Ace, took what I actually said out of context.

OK, Apologies, rjh4. My post was not meant in a nasty way but merely as friendly banter! I really don't mind to continue with the debate...

No problem. I did not take it as nasty.

OK, do you believe in the whole Bible then? Have you truly read the OT? You are saying that we would never know the reasons why God does certain things. This is a nice excuse to hide behind when God does inhumane things. There are many stories in the OT where God is portrayed as sexist, warmonger, promotes slavery, homophobic, egotistical, etc. In my eyes this is NOT an all-loving God and I do not wish to ever worhip this God (not that I believe in him in the first place). It is easy for you Christians to hide behind "God is to complex for us to understand". If that is your reasoning, why believe anything in the Bible?

Have I at least convinced you that there ARE many inconsistancies in the Bible? This seemed to be your whole argument...

Yes I believe in the whole Bible. Yes I have truly read the OT, a couple of times in whole. No you have not convinced me that there are many inconsistencies in the Bible. (I'm sure you are not surprised by this.) What you may have established is that if one holds God to the same standards as God holds for us or you hold for yourself and others, you could consider God and the Bible as being inconsistent. From your point of view then, you think the inconsistency has been established. However, I think your whole point of view of holding God to the same standards as God holds for us is irrational. If God exists, created the universe, created man, and told us how we should behave, then God and what He told us is the standard for everything else. What you want to do is turn things around on God. It is like a two year old complaining to his father because the father won't let him drive the family car. "Well you drive and I am a human like you, I should be able to drive too. You are being inconsistent and irrational." You tell me. Is the father really being inconsistent and irrational? I certainly don't think so. The two year old is not in a position emotionally/physically to drive or to make good judgements in driving. So I think it is in an analogous sense that God and the Bible are not inconsistent or irrational when it tells of God doing certain things that he told us not to do or you think God should not have done.