Question for the theist.

[lilphil1989]

We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools.

How can you possibly know that?

It's scientific. How would you measure an infinitely defined being then?

What do you mean by infintely defined?

[fr0d0]

And if you have a rational reason to make a leap of faith in God's existence - then if you HAVE a rational reason that would equate to evidence so you couldn't HAVE faith because you can't have faith in something when there is evidence of it.

You make too many assumptions Evie. You can't have rational reasoning that makes it sure you need the leap... that would be entirely illogical, like you say. The more you say on this the more you prove the evidence shit is so very illogical.

---

What do you mean by infintely defined?

Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent...

[Tiberius]

But just to be picky... You by the way you constructed yours, can be seen as lumping drugies with criminals, wich i personally don't even do...
I see drug use as a personal choice, and even selling it don't rate as a real crime in my mind. It is the violent metod the criminal gang use to keep their dominion over its trade that pose a big problem.
And also to some extent the behavior of people under the influence of drugs can pose problems, but i did enough of it to know that if someone is not the kind of person to commit crimes, drugs by itselfs won't make him do it.

Well in the country I come from, drugs are illegal (the class A,B ones), and the word "druggie" tends to mean people who use those drugs.

Hence they are breaking the law by acquiring drugs, hence they are criminals. I'm pro drug as well, but I'm not anti-law. I will respect the law as long as it is in place.

[Kyuuketsuki]

No you haven't Frodo, you have claimed it and you have argued it but in each and every case you have met a wall of opposition that basically says (at best for you) that the issue remains unresolved and, because you are claiming something which cannot be demonstrated, something extraordinary you are STILL required to supply extraordinary evidence ... only you can't because you have none.

We're not talking proof of God's existence here, because that's not possible scientifically. To prove God scientifically would require god like measuring tools. The descriptors of God are human descriptors with inherent human limitations.

Frodo ... I am aware of your claim, I happen to dispute it and so, as far as I am aware, do many others in this forum. I don't care if your God is the biggest baddest motherfucker ever to grace this universe or any other, if something affects our universe then it must leave a trail of evidence ... to do otherwise is something extraordinary and therefore you must provide extraordinary evidence to support your claim.

The theological questions are not scientific questions requiring evidence. Even consideration of the problems are anti science.

To insist, as you are doing, that the evidence for your God is beyond science, reason and the accepted rules of verifiable evidence acquisition (that your god is above and beyond the accepted rules of science & evidence) is nothing but special pleading.

Kyu

[lilphil1989]

Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent...

How do you know that your god has these properties?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent...

So your god is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (everywhere) so therefore it can do anything, be anywhere, knows everything (past, present & future) and I presume you'd also claim it was omni-benevolent (most theists seem to).

But let's deal with the ones cited ... your God apparently knows everything there is to know which must include past, present and future; that means it can change its mind but actually can't do because it would already know in advance that it would change its mind therefore its not a change. Quite apart from denying omnipotency if it knows everything then it will know every single thing we do, every thought we have and no matter what we do it is effectively written ... in stone! Given that this, by your oh so seemingly simple statement, is so can you tell us how we would have any choice at all if the past, present and future are known (by anyone)? If all future events are known then our personal futures are necessarily included therefore our futures are known, mapped out and any free will we think we have (somethign I assume you buy into) is an illusion.

Tell us how it works Frodo? Tell us how an all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient god can know our future yet provide with free will that is not an illusion? Tell us how free will can exist if those are characteristics of your god?

Seems to me you just believe what you want to believe without considering the rational consequences of those beliefs!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

And if you have a rational reason to make a leap of faith in God's existence - then if you HAVE a rational reason that would equate to evidence so you couldn't HAVE faith because you can't have faith in something when there is evidence of it.

You make too many assumptions Evie.

You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.

You can't have rational reasoning that makes it sure you need the leap... that would be entirely illogical, like you say.

That's not what you said before. Before you said that you COULD have rational reasoning to make the leap:

There can't be rationalising for faith... but rationalising for a reason to take the faith leap. Very different.

- you said on the 'Reasoning for belief in God' thread that you started. (My bolding).

The more you say on this the more you prove the evidence shit is so very illogical.

So expecting evidence for God is illogical apparently? Presumably because as you say it's stupid because there CAN'T be any because it would require 'God like measuring tools that we don't have'. But what??? - does that mean you think we should believe WITHOUT evidence simply because there CAN'T be any? ( there can't for sake of argument anyway).

How does 1. Evidence = Impossible for God (because we can't measure him, etc) mean that 2. We therefore should believe in God WITHOUT evidence???

It's of course only rational to believe in the EXISTENCE of something if there is actually evidence, actually some indication - that it actually exists!!! If you have no reason whatsoever to believe in the existence of something but you believe anyway - then you can't really get any more irrational than THAT can you! It's illogical. Nonsensical.

And it's giving biased special treatment because the above also applies to the FSM:

Does 1. Evidence = Impossible for the FSM (because we can't measure it, etc) mean that 2. We therefore should believe in the FSM WITHOUT evidence???

And if not why do you think this logic applies to God? If evidence for something IS indeed IMPOSSIBLE does that mean you should just go ahead and believe anyway?

Like "Oh well...it appears it's logically impossible for there to be any indication whatsoever that God actually exists (any evidence whatsoever) so there's no rational reason to believe... Oh well *shrugs* looks like we're just gonna have to believe anyway!!"

EvF

[fr0d0]

Frodo ... I am aware of your claim, I happen to dispute it and so, as far as I am aware, do many others in this forum. I don't care if your God is the biggest baddest motherfucker ever to grace this universe or any other, if something affects our universe then it must leave a trail of evidence ... to do otherwise is something extraordinary and therefore you must provide extraordinary evidence to support your claim.

The trail of evidence is everything and anything of course. It also isn't to you. *shrugs*. The claim is that evidence is impossible to determine without the knowledge of a god.

The theological questions are not scientific questions requiring evidence. Even consideration of the problems are anti science.

To insist, as you are doing, that the evidence for your God is beyond science, reason and the accepted rules of verifiable evidence acquisition (that your god is above and beyond the accepted rules of science & evidence) is nothing but special pleading.

Kyu

Science doesn't cover it. You either accept that or continue with a very limited veiw of the world. A simplistic - touch it we can know it world, without the capacity of thought.

Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent...

How do you know that your god has these properties?

I don't. I know that these ideas stand up to scrutiny, and as such represent our best understanding.

You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.

Yeah because you and I are talking theory. If your argument isn't logical then to me I couldn't hold that opinion. It'd have to make sense.

You have rational reasoning to make the leap a worthwhile risk. You can't rationally do something and at the same time that thing be a risk. I get a glimpse of the benefits on the other side and can reason that the leap may be worth it. that's the position a Christian finds themselves in. This in no way puts beyond doubt the existence of God. That cannot be known, and faith is part of the journey.



This is my last time on the forum for a few weeks guys. It's been a blast as usual. Catch up with you then. Try not to waste away in my absence k?

[Edwardo Piet]

You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.

Yeah because you and I are talking theory. If your argument isn't logical then to me I couldn't hold that opinion. It'd have to make sense.

I don't know why not though.

Ok so: 1. You and I both define faith as belief without evidence right? 2. If there is reasoning to believe God actually exists then this would IOW equate to evidence right? 3. If '2.' is true and there IS reasoning to believe God actually exists and therefore IOW there's evidence of some form, then you couldn't be believing with faith or 'have faith' in God because you believe with evidence (or IOW - with good reason!) and you can't believe 'on faith' or 'with faith' when there is evidence.

What don't you get there?

You have rational reasoning to make the leap a worthwhile risk. You can't rationally do something and at the same time that thing be a risk.

Not true. Because there is pretty much ALWAYS SOME risk. It's all based on probability. The point is that it's irrational to believe in God if there is no evidence and he's an AWFUL LOT more IMprobable than probable. If on the other hand the risk is very small and unlikely because there's shitloads of evidence then it's NOT rational to believe in it.

I get a glimpse of the benefits on the other side and can reason that the leap may be worth it. that's the position a Christian finds themselves in. This in no way puts beyond doubt the existence of God. That cannot be known, and faith is part of the journey.

You get a glimpse on the other side and reason the leap may be worth it? IOW you have some reasoning to believe on faith?(i.e completely without evidence?)

But if the reasons are at all valid for taking to leap on faith then they would somehow give reason to believe that God exists. They would be some form of evidence. And if that reasoning or evidence makes you think the leap of faith is worth it - then you actually not only don't NEED the leap of faith but you CAN'T have it by definition because if you could then you couldn't have the 'rational glimpse' or reasoning that you speak of TO make the leap - because if the reasoning is at all valid then it would count as evidence and hence cancel out the "faith"!

This is my last time on the forum for a few weeks guys. It's been a blast as usual. Catch up with you then. Try not to waste away in my absence k?

Ok

LaterZ fr0d0! (*watches out for Kyu watching 'overhead like a hawk'* (it seems to piss him off when I say "laterZ" rather than "laters" LOL)).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Damn U Evie!!!

You still haven't countered my argument though. Looks to me like you're just merely dismissing the logic of it.

Yeah because you and I are talking theory. If your argument isn't logical then to me I couldn't hold that opinion. It'd have to make sense.

I don't know why not though.

Ok so: 1. You and I both define faith as belief without evidence right? 2. If there is reasoning to believe God actually exists then this would IOW equate to evidence right? 3. If '2.' is true and there IS reasoning to believe God actually exists and therefore IOW there's evidence of some form, then you couldn't be believing with faith or 'have faith' in God because you believe with evidence (or IOW - with good reason!) and you can't believe 'on faith' or 'with faith' when there is evidence.

What don't you get there?

1. Yep
2. No. Unless evidence can = don't know

You get a glimpse on the other side and reason the leap may be worth it? IOW you have some reasoning to believe on faith?(i.e completely without evidence?)

Yes

But if the reasons are at all valid for taking to leap on faith then they would somehow give reason to believe that God exists. They would be some form of evidence.

Evidence = non provable

And if that reasoning or evidence makes you think the leap of faith is worth it - then you actually not only don't NEED the leap of faith but you CAN'T have it by definition because if you could then you couldn't have the 'rational glimpse' or reasoning that you speak of TO make the leap - because if the reasoning is at all valid then it would count as evidence and hence cancel out the "faith"!

LoL

Is there any way you can work that out to make sense? I mean, make the faith essential and the evidence impossible? This is the equation you're dealing with here.

LaterZ fr0d0! (*watches out for Kyu watching 'overhead like a hawk'* (it seems to piss him off when I say "laterZ" rather than "laters" LOL)).

L8rz Evie